| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 02:47:17 GMT, wrote: "In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?" The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of audibility. Quite so, which fells them at the first fence for ABX comparison. Given that this issue in practice limits many amplifiers to an *average* output of perhaps 1 to 5 watts, you might be correct? This assumes a peak to average ratio for most high quality digital source recordings of ~20dB. Ya wouldn't wannna clip 'em, not even for a microsecond, since that just might make the "differences" audible, eh? :- ) OTOH, the subjectivist crew will *never* argue that power is an issue. Randy of course does have a commercial axe to grind here, as his BEAR Labs 'Symphony' amplifiers are gross overkill for most speakers, and are an hommage to the early Krells. Actually, Stew, they are not an hommage to any Krells at all. No more than any modern amplifier of reasonable power and current capability might be. Beyond that there is very little resemblance between any Krell, modern or "classic" in terms of design or topology. You do use "overkill" Krell amplifiers yourself, Lord Pinkerton? Have you yet addressed why you don't trade 'em, in for some nice NAD, Bryston or Adcomm gear? _-_-bear |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 21 Aug 2005 15:34:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a similar impression. Personally, I 've never heard a Bryston or Krell that didn't sound just like any other well-designed amp. Of course, if you're using your eyes as well as your ears, you may have a quite different impression. Lord Pinkerton, your views on this matter are well documented here and in other forums. But, one might find it curious that you chose to use Krell amplifiers, rather than selling them, pocketing the difference, in favor of some less expensive and "equally well-designed" amplifier. One would not find it all curious if one had heard the explanation a dozen times, as youi have. Or, are you going to tell us that the reason you have Krells is their ability to drive very low Z loads? In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load? As you well know, that is precisely the reason. And it is of course *obvious* that some amplifiers do not perform well into very low loads. That is of course why the standard precondition of ABX testing is that the amps are used below clipping. At about 10mph, all cars perform equally well, btw. Notice any similarity here? Crash tests, and testing up near the limits are where differences start to become clear and self-evident. I do not think it is possible to do real world tests with amplifiers and *assume* that they never clip, or that they will never see a highly reactive load. Do you? What indication do you have that your amplifiers NEVER clip? More curious than ever. Just curious. No Randy, you're not curious at all, as we've been around these curves many times before. I notice that you're still selling those 'Silver Lightning' cables, and still claiming that they sound different from standard Radio Shack fare - but you will not prove that you can actually hear the difference yourself. Prove? How? What would constitute "proof"?? ABX? Done by who, where, under what controlled and measured conditions? With what gear, at whose expense? Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the States... Indeed so. So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston? I believe that Bryston still has the best warranty, so if the Bryston of your choice has the power to drive your preferred speakers to your preferred listening level, it seems like a good bet to me. Or would you rather someone bought a BEAR Labs Symphony amp, Randy? :-) What's the warranty like on those Krell wannabee monsters? Ummm... they don't break? But actually I have had to repair two in the last 20 years, thanks for asking. One was toasted by a huge DC offset and oscillation from a source that has toasted itself, the other was mine, and it ran for 5-10 minutes into a dead short (yes) while playing at full volume (the spade lugs on the amp were touching) and I noticed the amp "smelled warm" and then one of the Mosfets on *one* rail decided to do the "internal arc welding trick" buring a white hot hole in the case. Replacing that Mosfet with another matched carefully solved the problem, irrc. Stout design, eh? :- ) Thanks for asking. Btw, you can no longer purchase a Symphony No.1 Amplifier, I don't think. The caps that make up the supply are no longer available at prices that make any sense whatsoever, along with some other parts that have become increasingly expensive. While I suppose if money were no object, I could manage to build one, no one has come by ever with that situation in hand... Regards, _-_-bear |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs... Be certain that the test conditions can be measured and documented (beyond the usual lack thereof) and the *gear agreed upon*, and that the source material can be chosen and agreed upon by me (and you) and we're ready to go. Eg. a SONY CD player will not be an acceptable source... Of course, that standing prize had best be held by a real escrow service, and documented, as well as there being an agreed upon objective observer(s) present. Ok? :- ) I'll bring some friends possibly, and they can do the same "trick" that I will, or else we can all fail miserably. Of course, if we have to hear the difference between a Bryston and a Krell, that's tougher if the Krell is a KSA series and the Bryston is a Bryston, since they are really the same amp, with a slightly different implementation... or didn't you know that? So that's picking between two amps that I feel are less than "optimal" but very similar in many respects. Probably still not that hard to do though... ;_) _-_-bear PS. last time I asked about the $$, no one managed to do much more than shuffle their feet, look down, change the subject, etc... gonna be different this time? That was a few years ago. Ok - let's try this another way: - I have no idea who has a $10k check for an "amp" challenge? Please supply a link or URL. - Who supplies the transpo costs is hardly the main matter, let's avoid that issue entirely for now. I would have thought that all of the very vociferous "objectivists" would be glad and happy to chip in to send me somewhere for presumed humiliation? No?? - I thought we were talking about the $5k cable issue/amp issue fostered on this newsgroup. Which, afaik, still bogus since no one has ever actually PUT UP THE MONEY. - The test conditions MUST be appropriate in all aspects. Period. If they can not be met, then the test as far as I am concerned is bogus and meaningless. For example, if I want a CD player that according to someone's opinion is "imperfect" BUT I think that it will help me hear amp differences, then that is my perogative. Right? More than that, objective measurements of the system and its components before the actual challenge test, as a system, and after the challenge test are *essential* imho. This is time consuming and non-trivial. Some one else's (random from my point of view) system can not be deemed to be appropriate or sufficient just because they say so. Answer those issues, and there may be something to talk about - but of course, no one on this group has ante'd up a penny, so it is all talk. If someone knows this 10k$ guy you can do the preliminary discussion, pass along what I've said, and see if he balks at any of it. Then it may make sense to waste my time trying to see where it goes. _-_-bear |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? Pretext? No MONEY in a *challenge* that you and the others of your ilk dreamed up, but failed to make real?? That's a pretext?? No agreement to do OBJECTIVE TESTING of the system used in your "definitive" ABX tests? That's a pretext?? You're a funny person, Pinkerton. And, btw, I take roughly a year or so mostly off from rahe, and you and some others are still beating the same old dead horse? Why? For the "truth"? Do you truly believe you have "the truth" in hand, and that you are the only ones who know it?? Do you? _-_-bear |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons.
How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side?" Yes, to determine the threshold of the visual perception of "dirt" one would need a reference to percieve difference. Gross differences are easy to recall but as the difference becomes very small our memories don't allow valid recolection of differences. The statement above about "hearing" about amps evokes the same principle and only testing that excludes errors of memory can provide a valid answer as to the threshold of any proposed quality of amps. At issue also is the oft repeated claim of the subjective enterprise that even a small system change makes a difference, which excludes all but the exact same system in the exact same context to make the claim above valid even using subjective criteria. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 00:35:17 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote: wrote: Bret Ludwig wrote: wrote: Bret Ludwig wrote: ... (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the Brystons, or in some other solid state amps. Excuse me? Even the best measuring tube amps ever made (i.e. the later McIntosh's and the Kron-Hite's) don't measure like a modern solid state amp. Many popular high end solid state amps don't measure all that well, That's because those use questionable design practices like low or no loop feedback. Many designers, listeners, and DIY hobbyists believe that no, or low loop feedback is a design benefit. I tend to agree. I concede it has never been scientifically proven absolutely wrong. In point of fact, any of a dozen or more topologies can produce amplifiers which are sonically transparent. It follows of course that they all sound the same, or rather they don't *have* any 'sound' of their own. This is of course not a popular fact with 'high end' sales people, but it remains true. There is no way a tube amp can have as low an output impedance as a solid state amp unless the solid state amp is puposely (or incompentently) designed not to have a low output impedance, and differences in output impedance are the most common reason for acoustically audible differences between amplifiers. Only in extremis, i.e. when the o/p impedance is more than half an ohm, and the speakers have low impedance. This typically only happens with low feedback designs such as SETs. and I've seen .04,.035 from sufficiently tweaked MC275s-if you unhook the heater supply and run it off a bench DC supply. Apples and oranges. Tweak all those other amps and then compare. Or just buy a good modern tube design such as the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight. They say Julie Labs was doing .004,.003 in the sixties-I've never seen one personally-and there aren't many solid state amps that get near there. That was then. This is now. MANY solid state amps can do those numbers. But so what? IME, THD numbers are most useful from a production or repair standpoint to detect amps that have problems from normally functioning units. THD has to get surprisingly high to be acoustically audible. Intermod is a different story, but still, the point is, we are not after numbers here, per se. You brought up measurements and wrote some misleading things about them, that's all. I fail to see what I said was misleading. I have been careful to state things in a non-confrontational way, however. You stated that some classic topolgy tube amps measure as well as Brystons. This simply isn't true. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 03:06:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them sonically equal. The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1 ohm load, the Bryston is not. So how much *continuous* listening do you do at full rated output? Quite a bit, since my amp isn't that powerful, my speakers are insensitive, and my system is set up to clip at 0dB FS on my CD player with the volume control at -6dB from full volume - which is where it usually sits when I'm having a serious listen - or am in the next room. So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells. One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior, despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same. In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of) character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same, that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier. In other words, it sounds better to you than most other amps, when used in the real world. You're still not listening, are you Harry? It sounds *the same* as most other well-designed amps. My Denon PMA-350 II sounds a little rougher when cranked up to full power on the Duettas, but then it was never designed to drive such a load, and *visibly* distorts under these circumstances. I mean you can clearly see the distortion on a 'scope, the amp doesn't actually change shape........... :-) Isn't that how most of us buy and use amps? Did you need a blind test? Of course, since I wanted to be *sure* that what I thought I was hearing actually existed. Mostly, it didn't. FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and effortless. Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp. Since when can the speakers be divorced from the amp driving them? All the time, if the amp is adequate. I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons. How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side? You couldn't tell if one was clear glass and one was slightly rose-tinted, unless they were side by side. Ever been driving in a car with slightly green-tinted side windows? The world loooks all normal, until you wind the window down a little, and realise that the sky is pink! The problem with subjectivists like you Harry, is that you don't even *know* that your hearing, like your eyesight, is very easily fooled. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side? When the sun comes out full glare on both windows, I can't tell them apart. Under other situations, I can. Carry that over to your audio analogy. Okay, I'll carry over. The introduction of a third, extraneous factor causes the clear difference (pun intended) to disappear. A quick-switch, comparative test, perhaps? \-) |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
"I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons. How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side?" Yes, to determine the threshold of the visual perception of "dirt" one would need a reference to percieve difference. Gross differences are easy to recall but as the difference becomes very small our memories don't allow valid recolection of differences. The statement above about "hearing" about amps evokes the same principle and only testing that excludes errors of memory can provide a valid answer as to the threshold of any proposed quality of amps. At issue also is the oft repeated claim of the subjective enterprise that even a small system change makes a difference, which excludes all but the exact same system in the exact same context to make the claim above valid even using subjective criteria. Well, in that case since the Brystons have *never* sounded completely transparent to me in listening via electrostatics, and Krells do sound transparent, then I guess the difference must be fairly large, musn't it? |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Secondly, it can be shown that high levels of global loop feedback can and do lead to all sorts of "issues" relating to various sorts of transient distortions, especially with reactive loads - in some cases high levels of global loop feedback are a detriment. The operative word is "can". If the amplifier is properly compensated and has adequite input headroom there is no problem. This has been known for well over half a century except to some of the high end audio biz. THe only disadvantage of any kind of feedback is harmonic multiplication, which mathematically exists, but in well designed amps, it is deeply buried in the noise. Do you suggest that such products are audible even if the noise is inaudible? Is most of the distortion in a typical power amp in the output stage, or the input stage, or distributed throughout? Assuming good design practices, open loop, it is in the output stage. When global feedback is used, it is distributed. If someone doesn't know that they probably shouldn't be designing amps to sell. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 26 Aug 2005 03:06:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them sonically equal. The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1 ohm load, the Bryston is not. So how much *continuous* listening do you do at full rated output? Quite a bit, since my amp isn't that powerful, my speakers are insensitive, and my system is set up to clip at 0dB FS on my CD player with the volume control at -6dB from full volume - which is where it usually sits when I'm having a serious listen - or am in the next room. Okay. But that's peak power. Not coninuous. So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells. One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior, despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same. In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of) character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same, that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier. In other words, it sounds better to you than most other amps, when used in the real world. You're still not listening, are you Harry? It sounds *the same* as most other well-designed amps. My Denon PMA-350 II sounds a little rougher when cranked up to full power on the Duettas, but then it was never designed to drive such a load, and *visibly* distorts under these circumstances. I suspect the manufacturer might take issue with your characterizing the amp as "never designed to drive such a load". I am sure it was not sold with the caveat that it couldn't handle low impedance loads. You don't understand what "real world" means? I mean you can clearly see the distortion on a 'scope, the amp doesn't actually change shape........... :-) :-) Isn't that how most of us buy and use amps? Did you need a blind test? Of course, since I wanted to be *sure* that what I thought I was hearing actually existed. Mostly, it didn't. But you bought it anyway. Such an objectivist! You're mama must be proud. FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and effortless. Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp. Since when can the speakers be divorced from the amp driving them? All the time, if the amp is adequate. They still have to be driven by something, which is the second device (third if you include cables) back in the system...and if that device is not transparent compared to another, you hear it if the first component (speakers) are transparent enough. Haven't heard an electrostat yet that failed that test. Your point is.....? I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons. How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side? You couldn't tell if one was clear glass and one was slightly rose-tinted, unless they were side by side. Ever been driving in a car with slightly green-tinted side windows? The world loooks all normal, until you wind the window down a little, and realise that the sky is pink! Sorry, Stewart, I have *never* confused green tinted windows for clear, from inside or out. Perhaps I just see better?? Or maybe I am more grounded in reality and less intent on pursuing an agenda? The problem with subjectivists like you Harry, is that you don't even *know* that your hearing, like your eyesight, is very easily fooled. Oh great sir, I'm *SO* happy you've come to my rescue. Otherwise, how could I have ever come to put together a superb system (musically) that needed no change for the last dozen or so years, until I went to multchannel sound in 2002? |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? Pretext? No MONEY in a *challenge* that you and the others of your ilk dreamed up, but failed to make real?? That's a pretext?? No agreement to do OBJECTIVE TESTING of the system used in your "definitive" ABX tests? That's a pretext?? You're a funny person, Pinkerton. And, btw, I take roughly a year or so mostly off from rahe, and you and some others are still beating the same old dead horse? Why? For the "truth"? Do you truly believe you have "the truth" in hand, and that you are the only ones who know it?? Do you? This boggles the mind. Randy, a number of people "promised" to put money into escrow IF someone came up to the plate. If you want to take some swings, and terms are agreed upon, I'm sure everyone (still alive) will come through. You don't really expect everyone to tie their money up for years with no hitter in sight do you? That's ridiculous. The group challenge was about cables. I was in for $1000, and still am. Personally, I'd be in for amps also, but can't speak for anyone else, although AFAIK, Richard Clark's deal is still there. Also, the notion that we should pay your expenses is not reasonable at all - in my view, your failure to prove your claims (if it happens) would be no more significant than anyone elses. Have you proven your acute discerning abilities in any way? If not, why should anyone be excited about it? -- Steve Maki |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 20:57:54 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Ok - let's try this another way: - I have no idea who has a $10k check for an "amp" challenge? Please supply a link or URL. - Who supplies the transpo costs is hardly the main matter, let's avoid that issue entirely for now. I would have thought that all of the very vociferous "objectivists" would be glad and happy to chip in to send me somewhere for presumed humiliation? No?? No. You're the one making all the claims, and repeating them on the website where you sell cables of supposed sonic merit. - I thought we were talking about the $5k cable issue/amp issue fostered on this newsgroup. Which, afaik, still bogus since no one has ever actually PUT UP THE MONEY. About a dozen people have pledged sums in the $200 to $1,000 range, and I have a separate pledge of £1,000 for UK listeners. That's about as real as it gets, until a test is actually agreed, at which point the cash can be handed to the agreed impartial observer. - The test conditions MUST be appropriate in all aspects. Period. If they can not be met, then the test as far as I am concerned is bogus and meaningless. For example, if I want a CD player that according to someone's opinion is "imperfect" BUT I think that it will help me hear amp differences, then that is my perogative. Right? Sure, the source is your choice, as is the music. More than that, objective measurements of the system and its components before the actual challenge test, as a system, and after the challenge test are *essential* imho. This is time consuming and non-trivial. Some one else's (random from my point of view) system can not be deemed to be appropriate or sufficient just because they say so. It's not really time-consuming, usually takes me about ten minutes for amps, and one for cables, as level adjustments are hardly ever needed. Just stick a voltmeter on the speaker terminals, and put in a steady signal (I generally use a test CD), at 100, 1,000 and 10,000 Hz. Hardly rocket science! And you're welcome to use your own system. In fact, most of the 'objectivists' would *prefer* that you use your own system. Cuts down the available range of the inevitable post-test excuses....... Answer those issues, and there may be something to talk about - but of course, no one on this group has ante'd up a penny, so it is all talk. If someone knows this 10k$ guy you can do the preliminary discussion, pass along what I've said, and see if he balks at any of it. Then it may make sense to waste my time trying to see where it goes. I'll put up $2,000 on my own recognisance. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2005 00:25:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 Aug 2005 03:06:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them sonically equal. The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1 ohm load, the Bryston is not. So how much *continuous* listening do you do at full rated output? Quite a bit, since my amp isn't that powerful, my speakers are insensitive, and my system is set up to clip at 0dB FS on my CD player with the volume control at -6dB from full volume - which is where it usually sits when I'm having a serious listen - or am in the next room. Okay. But that's peak power. Not coninuous. Sure, but it can continue to produce these peaks all day long. Besides, on thrash metal with a 6dB dynamic range and lots of digital clipping, it *is* continuous! :-) So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells. One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior, despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same. In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of) character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same, that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier. In other words, it sounds better to you than most other amps, when used in the real world. You're still not listening, are you Harry? It sounds *the same* as most other well-designed amps. My Denon PMA-350 II sounds a little rougher when cranked up to full power on the Duettas, but then it was never designed to drive such a load, and *visibly* distorts under these circumstances. I suspect the manufacturer might take issue with your characterizing the amp as "never designed to drive such a load". I am sure it was not sold with the caveat that it couldn't handle low impedance loads. Rated output power is 50/50 into 8 ohms at 20-20kHz, and 70/70 into 4 ohms, at 1kHz. No rating for lower loads. It's certainly not rated for a 3-ohm load, nor is it happy driving those Duettas for extended periods - it gets hot and shuts down. Isn't that how most of us buy and use amps? Did you need a blind test? Of course, since I wanted to be *sure* that what I thought I was hearing actually existed. Mostly, it didn't. But you bought it anyway. Such an objectivist! You're mama must be proud. Indeed - I bought the only one that's happy drivng the Duettas to realistic levels. The Denon shuts down (as well as being audibly inferior), and the Audiolab gets *way* too hot for comfort. The Krell just sits there doing its thing and wondering what all the fuss is about................... FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and effortless. Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp. Since when can the speakers be divorced from the amp driving them? All the time, if the amp is adequate. They still have to be driven by something, which is the second device (third if you include cables) back in the system...and if that device is not transparent compared to another, you hear it if the first component (speakers) are transparent enough. Haven't heard an electrostat yet that failed that test. Your point is.....? I've heard at least a dozen different amps driving Quads, they mostly sound the same. Of course, when I'm doing such comparisons, I don't *know* what's connected, which is the *big* difference. I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons. How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side? You couldn't tell if one was clear glass and one was slightly rose-tinted, unless they were side by side. Ever been driving in a car with slightly green-tinted side windows? The world loooks all normal, until you wind the window down a little, and realise that the sky is pink! Sorry, Stewart, I have *never* confused green tinted windows for clear, from inside or out. Perhaps I just see better?? Or maybe I am more grounded in reality and less intent on pursuing an agenda? I'll take that as meaning that you've never actually encountered the situation I described above, which will work for *anyone* who has normal colour vision. However, thanks for the great belly laugh about you being more grounded in reality! :-) The problem with subjectivists like you Harry, is that you don't even *know* that your hearing, like your eyesight, is very easily fooled. Oh great sir, I'm *SO* happy you've come to my rescue. Otherwise, how could I have ever come to put together a superb system (musically) that needed no change for the last dozen or so years, until I went to multchannel sound in 2002? Not hard really, but you probably spent *way* too much on the electronics and cables - coulda had even better speakers! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 20:56:07 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 21 Aug 2005 15:34:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a similar impression. Personally, I 've never heard a Bryston or Krell that didn't sound just like any other well-designed amp. Of course, if you're using your eyes as well as your ears, you may have a quite different impression. Lord Pinkerton, your views on this matter are well documented here and in other forums. But, one might find it curious that you chose to use Krell amplifiers, rather than selling them, pocketing the difference, in favor of some less expensive and "equally well-designed" amplifier. One would not find it all curious if one had heard the explanation a dozen times, as youi have. Or, are you going to tell us that the reason you have Krells is their ability to drive very low Z loads? In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load? As you well know, that is precisely the reason. And it is of course *obvious* that some amplifiers do not perform well into very low loads. That is of course why the standard precondition of ABX testing is that the amps are used below clipping. At about 10mph, all cars perform equally well, btw. Notice any similarity here? Crash tests, and testing up near the limits are where differences start to become clear and self-evident. Funny how the 'Golden Ears', especially the SET gang, always argue that the 'the first watt is the most important'. Did you ever see *anyone* suggest that you can't hear differences when one amp is clipping? Of course not. I do not think it is possible to do real world tests with amplifiers and *assume* that they never clip, or that they will never see a highly reactive load. Do you? What indication do you have that your amplifiers NEVER clip? More curious than ever. Not a problem with a CD source. Just curious. No Randy, you're not curious at all, as we've been around these curves many times before. I notice that you're still selling those 'Silver Lightning' cables, and still claiming that they sound different from standard Radio Shack fare - but you will not prove that you can actually hear the difference yourself. Prove? How? What would constitute "proof"?? ABX? Done by who, where, under what controlled and measured conditions? With what gear, at whose expense? By you, in your own system, level-matched DBT conditions. No expense for you under those conditions - and no post-test excuses, either. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 20:54:50 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 23 Aug 2005 02:47:17 GMT, wrote: "In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?" The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of audibility. Quite so, which fells them at the first fence for ABX comparison. Given that this issue in practice limits many amplifiers to an *average* output of perhaps 1 to 5 watts, you might be correct? This assumes a peak to average ratio for most high quality digital source recordings of ~20dB. Ya wouldn't wannna clip 'em, not even for a microsecond, since that just might make the "differences" audible, eh? :- ) Correct - and into most speakers, that's a pretty high listening level. Nice try, but of course you already knew this, so it's just more smoke and mirrors. Time to step up to the plate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
You stated that some classic topolgy tube amps measure as well as Brystons. This simply isn't true. Stewart, I'm not sure what the present breed of Brystons spec at, but the KRELLs and Brystons of yore, both being the same topology typically spec'd at ~ 0.01% THD best case. I think I am being generous here, since I seem to recall 0.10% - but no matter. IF you compare the spectrum of harmonics from some well designed tube amps, and neither the ARC nor the CJ qualifies. But I'll accept the McIntosh as an example - eliminate the anitique AC filament component for best comparison purposes, ok? - you will likely find that the solid state amps STILL have an apparently lower distortion spec! That does not tell us much about what you will or will not hear. In fact it tells us either nothing, or heads us in the WRONG direction! To understand why this is so, look into the D.E.L. Shorter BBC papers, and the newer, but surprisingly similar GedLee Metric (JAES) papers. In our example, and in practical terms the McIntosh is substantially LOWER in perceptible distortion. (...yes, we have to ignore bass response and DF at the moment...) It is valid to posit that IF the solid state distortion was in fact reduced by a few decimal places that it would in practical terms be lower in perceptible distortion than the McIntosh - however FEW power amps actually *suceed* in doing this trick into real world loads! This is where the problem lies. If you look at the Halcro patent - which is in turn derivative of the Hawksford idea - you can see what it takes to pull off this trick in a real world amplifier that drives real world loads. And even then, I'm not so sure exactly how sucessful this topology is in all respects. This is a summary of the objectivists/researchers/scientists view on the matter as it stands in the literature today. Time for you all to come up to date on this issue. _-_- |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Well, in that case since the Brystons have *never* sounded completely
transparent to me in listening via electrostatics, and Krells do sound transparent, then I guess the difference must be fairly large, musn't it?" Who knows, but a listening alone test would let us know quickly enough. Then if you could note a difference, any difference, then we could then go the extra step to measure them to see what level of difference might have risen above the threshold of audibility. If a difference cann't beestablished with the listening alone test any other considerations are mute. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
The key word in your assertion is "inaudible". To reply upon a presumption that the harmonics of a given amp will be in fact "inaudible" when faced with real world loads is not a good bet. I can see where this is headed, and I don't intend to get involved in another endless irrational debate with a subjectivist about audibility. Suffice it to say that the weight of empirical evidence is not on your side, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Could you please go back a post and address the specific questions I raised about this topic? Looks like ur ducking the issue. What issue are you talking about? |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Stewart, I'm not sure what the present breed of Brystons spec at, but the KRELLs and Brystons of yore, both being the same topology typically spec'd at ~ 0.01% THD best case. I think I am being generous here, since I seem to recall 0.10% - but no matter. You are off by quite a bit. The checkout sheet that came with my B14 SST shows measured THD (at full rated power into 4 ohms) of 0.0029% at 20 Hz and 200 Hz, 0.0036% at 2 kHz, and 0.0061% at 20 kHz. IM distortion was measured at 0.0036%. Output power at clipping was 955 wrms per channel. Noise level, -117 dB. Many who have heard the Bryston SST line say that they sound better than previous models. Perhaps that is due to the lower distortion levels -- I couldn't say. Mike in NC On the North Carolina coast |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike in NC wrote:
BEAR wrote: Stewart, I'm not sure what the present breed of Brystons spec at, but the KRELLs and Brystons of yore, both being the same topology typically spec'd at ~ 0.01% THD best case. I think I am being generous here, since I seem to recall 0.10% - but no matter. You are off by quite a bit. The checkout sheet that came with my B14 SST shows measured THD (at full rated power into 4 ohms) of 0.0029% at 20 Hz and 200 Hz, 0.0036% at 2 kHz, and 0.0061% at 20 kHz. IM distortion was measured at 0.0036%. We're discussing a different Bryston product. And there really isn't much difference between the .0061% figure and 0.01%... It would be instructional to learn how Bryston has changed their design and topology. Could the reduced overall distortion be due to an increased number of devices alone? Output power at clipping was 955 wrms per channel. Noise level, -117 dB. Really? 955 watts... into what load? Many who have heard the Bryston SST line say that they sound better than previous models. Perhaps that is due to the lower distortion levels -- I couldn't say. Mike in NC On the North Carolina coast FYI, I was discussing the "classic Krell" KSA line with the original Bryston line. Both share the same topology. _-_-bear |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 20:54:50 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 23 Aug 2005 02:47:17 GMT, wrote: "In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?" The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of audibility. Quite so, which fells them at the first fence for ABX comparison. Given that this issue in practice limits many amplifiers to an *average* output of perhaps 1 to 5 watts, you might be correct? This assumes a peak to average ratio for most high quality digital source recordings of ~20dB. Ya wouldn't wannna clip 'em, not even for a microsecond, since that just might make the "differences" audible, eh? :- ) Correct - and into most speakers, that's a pretty high listening level. Nice try, but of course you already knew this, so it's just more smoke and mirrors. Time to step up to the plate. Let's do some math Stew. How high a listening level does it take to clip a 100 watt amp? Lets consider if it is played through speakers of a typical low sensitivity, audiophile style (let's say 82-86dB SPL) at the average in room listening level of 90dB at a distance of say 3 meters away? Let's agree that many classical pieces (and others) have a ratio of average to peak levels of 20 dB. Step up to the plate. Waiting for your answer. _-_-bear |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 20:56:07 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: No Randy, you're not curious at all, as we've been around these curves many times before. I notice that you're still selling those 'Silver Lightning' cables, and still claiming that they sound different from standard Radio Shack fare - but you will not prove that you can actually hear the difference yourself. Prove? How? What would constitute "proof"?? ABX? Done by who, where, under what controlled and measured conditions? With what gear, at whose expense? By you, in your own system, level-matched DBT conditions. No expense for you under those conditions - and no post-test excuses, either. Fine, c'mon over and test. The rest of the post is more wrangling over things that no one really cares about. Since I don't own a SET amp, I don't care who argues what about it actually. But I do have speakers that would work fine on a few watts of power, they're real horns. :- ) _-_-bear |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
BEAR wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? Pretext? No MONEY in a *challenge* that you and the others of your ilk dreamed up, but failed to make real?? That's a pretext?? No agreement to do OBJECTIVE TESTING of the system used in your "definitive" ABX tests? That's a pretext?? You're a funny person, Pinkerton. And, btw, I take roughly a year or so mostly off from rahe, and you and some others are still beating the same old dead horse? Why? For the "truth"? Do you truly believe you have "the truth" in hand, and that you are the only ones who know it?? Do you? This boggles the mind. Randy, a number of people "promised" to put money into escrow IF someone came up to the plate. If you want to take some swings, and terms are agreed upon, I'm sure everyone (still alive) will come through. You don't really expect everyone to tie their money up for years with no hitter in sight do you? That's ridiculous. It is possible to put the money up without actually having it physically removed from your bank account. The terms of the escrow are not fixed. Ask someone who works with this stuff. Think of it like "bail bond"... or a legal promisory note. The KEY is that there is not ONE thing solid about people who post to newsgroups or forums - nothing binding or compelling. Thus, this is just so much self-righteous noise. The group challenge was about cables. I was in for $1000, and still am. Personally, I'd be in for amps also, but can't speak for anyone else, although AFAIK, Richard Clark's deal is still there. Also, the notion that we should pay your expenses is not reasonable at all - in my view, your failure to prove your claims (if it happens) would be no more significant than anyone elses. Have you proven your acute discerning abilities in any way? If not, why should anyone be excited about it? Excited? Say what? Who cares if anyone is excited about what I think or say? People who have made much noise on rahe about "objectivist" certainty have given the appearance that they wish to control the test, the test conditions and the test site up until now. If that has changed, it is news to me. The vociferous and righteous reactionary "objectivist" group on rahe has made the alleged "challenge." I challenge them to codify it in reality, at least before claiming it exists in reality. Otherwise it is less certain than the existance of audible differences in copper crystals. See? _-_-bear PS. I find it really FUNNY and IRONIC that everywhere except for this forum, people think I am mostly an "objectivist"! It's only on RAHE that I am not "objectivist" enough to suit these neo-objectivists. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
wrote: BEAR wrote: The key word in your assertion is "inaudible". To reply upon a presumption that the harmonics of a given amp will be in fact "inaudible" when faced with real world loads is not a good bet. I can see where this is headed, and I don't intend to get involved in another endless irrational debate with a subjectivist about audibility. Suffice it to say that the weight of empirical evidence is not on your side, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. No you don't seem to understand "where this is headed" at all. The point is that the latest research has shown fairly clearly that raw distortion figures simply do not tell much of anything about the audibility or lack thereof when it comes to amplfiers. The latest research *does correlate* acutal empirical measurements with audibility of distortion components. The *fact* remains that some signals are audible even when *below* the actual noise floor. In such a case, they would be audible even if those signals are distortion products. Or do you wish to disagree with this? When have I said that raw distorion figures are a barometer? I've never said that. As I clearly stated previously, if the noise is inaudible, something below it is going to be inaudible. Signals below audible noise are certainly audible, that's ancient news. Do you have any empirical evidence that products below inaudible noise are audible? If so, I'm really interested to know about it. You're probably playing with delusion if you think that the folks working on these newer distortion detection techniques are questioning the validity of the blind listening protocols, but maybe I'm wrong. Show one that does. Secondly, it can be shown that high levels of global loop feedback can and do lead to all sorts of "issues" relating to various sorts of transient distortions, especially with reactive loads - in some cases high levels of global loop feedback are a detriment. Is most of the distortion in a typical power amp in the output stage, or the input stage, or distributed throughout? I wonder then what your position is on the Hawksford type output stage vs. something like a Krell output stage, in light of the above issues? I agree with in-situ testing and have never stated otherwise. I think refinements in modern amplifiers that are designed to be technically accurate (as opposed to SET's) are interesting and fun to design and experiment with, but I'm not conviced they provide any audible benefit with most speakers, as empirical evidence is lacking. The exceptions being are cases of driving unusual loads such as very low impedance electrostatics, ribbons like the Apogee Scintilla and stuff like that. There can be lots of differences between amplifiers with such speakers. The Scintilla for example, was discontinued because most amplifiers wouldn't drive it properly and nobody has dared to make a speaker like that for the commericial market since. There are a lot of other issues in audio that are more effective for improving sound quality than concentrating on almost hard to drive fringe type speakers and amplifiers that might drive them well. Recordings, speaker refinement, (without resulting in difficult loads) speaker placement, room acoustics and correction to name a few. How about soundfield reconstruction in multichannel? I'm looking for excellent overall reproduction of music and sound, not just amplifiers that will drive a .5 ohm load that is dynamically reactive in a stable and linear manner. I like the design ideas in your amps, but they are overkill in most situations. For those that need them, carry on! |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2005 22:48:39 GMT, BEAR wrote:
This boggles the mind. Randy, a number of people "promised" to put money into escrow IF someone came up to the plate. If you want to take some swings, and terms are agreed upon, I'm sure everyone (still alive) will come through. You don't really expect everyone to tie their money up for years with no hitter in sight do you? That's ridiculous. It is possible to put the money up without actually having it physically removed from your bank account. The terms of the escrow are not fixed. Ask someone who works with this stuff. Think of it like "bail bond"... or a legal promisory note. The KEY is that there is not ONE thing solid about people who post to newsgroups or forums - nothing binding or compelling. Correct. So it would seem that it would be best to have a process where the parties proceed at a roughly even pace. If someone seems serious about trying the challenge, and preliminaries are agreed upon, the money part can be taken care of. At that point, not much effort has been spent by anyone. Thus, this is just so much self-righteous noise. Not in my view. The group challenge was about cables. I was in for $1000, and still am. Personally, I'd be in for amps also, but can't speak for anyone else, although AFAIK, Richard Clark's deal is still there. Also, the notion that we should pay your expenses is not reasonable at all - in my view, your failure to prove your claims (if it happens) would be no more significant than anyone elses. Have you proven your acute discerning abilities in any way? If not, why should anyone be excited about it? People who have made much noise on rahe about "objectivist" certainty have given the appearance that they wish to control the test, the test conditions and the test site up until now. If that has changed, it is news to me. Where in the world did you get that idea? I think everyone would prefer that it happen in your normal system, or a system of your choosing; and in fact, the test itself can be designed by you as long as it meets standard DBT protocols. Any other way creates a built-in excuse. The vociferous and righteous reactionary "objectivist" group on rahe has made the alleged "challenge." I challenge them to codify it in reality, at least before claiming it exists in reality. Otherwise it is less certain than the existance of audible differences in copper crystals. See? What I see is that you are perhaps engaging in a little Fighting Fire With Fire. That's OK, but any serious negotiations would need to be toned down a bit. Steve Maki |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 21:02:29 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote: "Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard," The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps mentioned in this thread. We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells 'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs' website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about.... Hmmm... I thought this sort of post was not going to be permitted any more? Why not? An obviously true statement, especially one based on the history of this newsgroup, tends to get through the moderators. Well, everyone please do look at my website. And, Stewie, where is THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUT UP FOR THIS GROUPS CHALLENGE? Nowhere. All talk, no action, eh? It's earning interest in my savings account. When an actual test time and place is agreed, it can be handed to the agreed impartial observer. So far, there's been nothing but hand-waving and excuses from you. Pretext? No MONEY in a *challenge* that you and the others of your ilk dreamed up, but failed to make real?? That's a pretext?? The pretext is you claiming that the money doesn't exist. No agreement to do OBJECTIVE TESTING of the system used in your "definitive" ABX tests? That's a pretext?? What kind of objective tests? That was never going to be a problem. What's wrong with using your own system? You're a funny person, Pinkerton. Well, I'm good fun to be around........ :-) And, btw, I take roughly a year or so mostly off from rahe, and you and some others are still beating the same old dead horse? Why? For the "truth"? Do you truly believe you have "the truth" in hand, and that you are the only ones who know it?? Do you? Oh no, *lots* of people are well aware of it, thank goodness. It's only those who buy 'high end' audio gear (like your Silver Lightning cables) who *don't* know it, and that's a *tiny* minority of music listeners. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Aug 2005 00:25:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 Aug 2005 03:06:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them sonically equal. The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1 ohm load, the Bryston is not. So how much *continuous* listening do you do at full rated output? Quite a bit, since my amp isn't that powerful, my speakers are insensitive, and my system is set up to clip at 0dB FS on my CD player with the volume control at -6dB from full volume - which is where it usually sits when I'm having a serious listen - or am in the next room. Okay. But that's peak power. Not coninuous. Sure, but it can continue to produce these peaks all day long. Besides, on thrash metal with a 6dB dynamic range and lots of digital clipping, it *is* continuous! :-) Euwwh, what taste! :-) However, if this is your cup of tea...why didn't you buy Brystons at 200wpc? Using a fifty watt amp driving heavy metal to continuous maximum output in a large room is insane to begin with. Still would have cost you less, and we know it sounds the same, right? So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells. One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior, despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same. In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of) character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same, that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier. In other words, it sounds better to you than most other amps, when used in the real world. You're still not listening, are you Harry? It sounds *the same* as most other well-designed amps. My Denon PMA-350 II sounds a little rougher when cranked up to full power on the Duettas, but then it was never designed to drive such a load, and *visibly* distorts under these circumstances. I suspect the manufacturer might take issue with your characterizing the amp as "never designed to drive such a load". I am sure it was not sold with the caveat that it couldn't handle low impedance loads. Rated output power is 50/50 into 8 ohms at 20-20kHz, and 70/70 into 4 ohms, at 1kHz. No rating for lower loads. It's certainly not rated for a 3-ohm load, nor is it happy driving those Duettas for extended periods - it gets hot and shuts down. The Denon is not exactly a natural pairing for the Duettas. Again, what happened to Brystons. Or Hafler 220's. Or all those other higher powered ones that "sound the same". They *were* rated down to two ohms. Isn't that how most of us buy and use amps? Did you need a blind test? Of course, since I wanted to be *sure* that what I thought I was hearing actually existed. Mostly, it didn't. But you bought it anyway. Such an objectivist! You're mama must be proud. Indeed - I bought the only one that's happy drivng the Duettas to realistic levels. The Denon shuts down (as well as being audibly inferior), and the Audiolab gets *way* too hot for comfort. The Krell just sits there doing its thing and wondering what all the fuss is about................... Seems that your comparison list was a bit selective and "short". FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and effortless. Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp. Since when can the speakers be divorced from the amp driving them? All the time, if the amp is adequate. They still have to be driven by something, which is the second device (third if you include cables) back in the system...and if that device is not transparent compared to another, you hear it if the first component (speakers) are transparent enough. Haven't heard an electrostat yet that failed that test. Your point is.....? I've heard at least a dozen different amps driving Quads, they mostly sound the same. Of course, when I'm doing such comparisons, I don't *know* what's connected, which is the *big* difference. Then again, if most "sound the same" why was one that was among the most expensive and lowest-powered your final choice? I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons. How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons? What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear one? You'd have to have them side by side? You couldn't tell if one was clear glass and one was slightly rose-tinted, unless they were side by side. Ever been driving in a car with slightly green-tinted side windows? The world loooks all normal, until you wind the window down a little, and realise that the sky is pink! Sorry, Stewart, I have *never* confused green tinted windows for clear, from inside or out. Perhaps I just see better?? Or maybe I am more grounded in reality and less intent on pursuing an agenda? I'll take that as meaning that you've never actually encountered the situation I described above, which will work for *anyone* who has normal colour vision. However, thanks for the great belly laugh about you being more grounded in reality! :-) It would be better if you take the meaning I offered, rather than conjuring up your own...."I have *never* confused green tinted windows for clear, from inside or out. " Catch my drift? The problem with subjectivists like you Harry, is that you don't even *know* that your hearing, like your eyesight, is very easily fooled. Oh great sir, I'm *SO* happy you've come to my rescue. Otherwise, how could I have ever come to put together a superb system (musically) that needed no change for the last dozen or so years, until I went to multchannel sound in 2002? Not hard really, but you probably spent *way* too much on the electronics and cables - coulda had even better speakers! :-) Let's see. $3000 of demo Audio Research gear amortized over 20 years equals...hmm, gosh, $150 per year? Outrageous. And the $0 bucks I had invested in gifted Purist Audio cables sure set me back a bundle...never should have accepted that gift from my audiophile buddy, should I have? That demo Phillips 880 CD player that satisfied me for twelve years surely was too expensive, even if it is a classic, right? And yeah, I agree, those Magnapans, IMF Monitors, and Thiel full-rangers are sure dogmeat. Why didn't I upgrade them? Competence in choosing equipment...yep, without blind tests...does not equate to dollars, Stewart. Despite your assertions to the contrary. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2005 22:46:32 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 26 Aug 2005 20:56:07 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote: No Randy, you're not curious at all, as we've been around these curves many times before. I notice that you're still selling those 'Silver Lightning' cables, and still claiming that they sound different from standard Radio Shack fare - but you will not prove that you can actually hear the difference yourself. Prove? How? What would constitute "proof"?? ABX? Done by who, where, under what controlled and measured conditions? With what gear, at whose expense? By you, in your own system, level-matched DBT conditions. No expense for you under those conditions - and no post-test excuses, either. Fine, c'mon over and test. The rest of the post is more wrangling over things that no one really cares about. Since I don't own a SET amp, I don't care who argues what about it actually. But I do have speakers that would work fine on a few watts of power, they're real horns. :- ) I don't need to come over - *you* are the one who'll be taking the test. We just need to agree on the conditions and the third-party observer. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Maki wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 22:48:39 GMT, BEAR wrote: This boggles the mind. Randy, a number of people "promised" to put money into escrow IF someone came up to the plate. If you want to take some swings, and terms are agreed upon, I'm sure everyone (still alive) will come through. You don't really expect everyone to tie their money up for years with no hitter in sight do you? That's ridiculous. It is possible to put the money up without actually having it physically removed from your bank account. The terms of the escrow are not fixed. Ask someone who works with this stuff. Think of it like "bail bond"... or a legal promisory note. The KEY is that there is not ONE thing solid about people who post to newsgroups or forums - nothing binding or compelling. Correct. So it would seem that it would be best to have a process where the parties proceed at a roughly even pace. If someone seems serious about trying the challenge, and preliminaries are agreed upon, the money part can be taken care of. At that point, not much effort has been spent by anyone. Thus, this is just so much self-righteous noise. Not in my view. The group challenge was about cables. I was in for $1000, and still am. Personally, I'd be in for amps also, but can't speak for anyone else, although AFAIK, Richard Clark's deal is still there. Also, the notion that we should pay your expenses is not reasonable at all - in my view, your failure to prove your claims (if it happens) would be no more significant than anyone elses. Have you proven your acute discerning abilities in any way? If not, why should anyone be excited about it? People who have made much noise on rahe about "objectivist" certainty have given the appearance that they wish to control the test, the test conditions and the test site up until now. If that has changed, it is news to me. Where in the world did you get that idea? I think everyone would prefer that it happen in your normal system, or a system of your choosing; and in fact, the test itself can be designed by you as long as it meets standard DBT protocols. Any other way creates a built-in excuse. Not sure what "standard" protocols consist of. Don't want to guess, right? These need to be CLEARLY DEFINED by those who are MAKING THE CHALLENGE, and POSTED, preferably to a WEBSITE so that they can be read and considered by prospective "challengers." Posts to this newsgroup are transitory and lack the weight and gravitas of a hardcopy or website posting with the requisite information therein. The vociferous and righteous reactionary "objectivist" group on rahe has made the alleged "challenge." I challenge them to codify it in reality, at least before claiming it exists in reality. Otherwise it is less certain than the existance of audible differences in copper crystals. See? What I see is that you are perhaps engaging in a little Fighting Fire With Fire. That's OK, but any serious negotiations would need to be toned down a bit. Steve Maki Start a new thread once anyone actually organizes and creates a bona fide challenge fund. Then post it to a website set up for that purpose, at least. Until then, I call upon everyone to cease, desist and stop claiming that such a fund or challenge exists except as a concept or nice idea. _-_-bear |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEAR wrote:
Your statements imply that below some "low" figure for raw "distortion" that everything is therefore inaudible - ergo all amplifiers below some threshold based on the raw distortion figures are going to sound the same, since there will be no audible distortion, no? You're implying that there are no known thresholds for human hearing, which is absolute nonsense no matter what you say, and I'm not going to argue about it. Furthermore, I and others have not singled out 'distortion' as the only parameter of audible performance as there are linear and non linear distortions and they all have different levels and conditions where they generally become audible. As I clearly stated previously, if the noise is inaudible, something below it is going to be inaudible. A nice statement, but somewhat circular in the reasoning department? What does this mean in practical terms? How do *you* determine that a given DUT is going to have "inaudible" artifacts/distortion? Read the literature on human perception and use the methods that have been developed to find out. Have you invented a better way? What is it? One would think that you would have presented it somplace far more important than here if you have. You're probably playing with delusion if you think that the folks working on these newer distortion detection techniques are questioning the validity of the blind listening protocols, but maybe I'm wrong. Show one that does. Blind listening protocols? What are they? (lol) You can posture better than that! I know of no documentary information that makes the present "protocols" meaningful... Then you should read the literature on human hearing perception and physiology. You can start with the books by Brian Moore. Zwicker and Fastl has a lot on the physiology. You won't find much about the protocols themselves in those books, but they will give you the background to understand why they are accepted and valid in audio research and will point you where you need to go. You should also read literature that's up to date, not old stuff espousing discarded theories like cochlear amplifiers. Don't expect a bumper sticker approach to yield much wisdom. They certainly are not accepted as valid in high end audio MARKETING and for good reason. So, the short answer is that you don't know why the Krell output stage is going to measure differently than the Bryston of the same era, even though the circuit is essentially identical? The basic topology is the same, as you say. They use different circuit enhancement details, devices, part values, operating points, etc. You have no idea what the relative merits or tradeoffs in a Hawksford type output stage might be vs. a Krell output stage, or which one will measure better or worse? I've never built or tested a Hawksford output stage, but have built power supply buffers using the Sziklai circuit. It has some additional internal feedback intrinsic to the circuit itself, with the resultant advantages and disadvantages. (mostly an advantage depending on what you're after) It is more prone to oscillations, but those problems can usually be solved. The pertanent question is: is it necessary to go to the trouble to do this in practical terms? The point, my friend, is that the interface between a "standard" high-end or consumer speaker and a given amplifier is *not at all simple* and not at all straighforward in terms of the sonic results. Just to season the pudding a bit, you seem to agree that there is some "threshold" above which (no matter how simplistically or complex the definition of said "threshold" may be) you can and *will* hear the effect of "distortion." It is not a far leap to consider the *additive* effect of the average speaker's distortion in *best case* being for the sake of argument *just below or at the threshold of detection* - with the understanding that with increases in level *most* common drivers increase in linear and especially non-linear distortions substantially increasing with greater levels - and that amplifiers will *also* increase substantially in distortion with level AND with variations in load impedance and phase angle (which, btw non-feedback amps are far less sensitive to this effect... fyi) SO one can see that given the right conditions, which often occur, amplifier/speaker combinations *can* and *do* reach into that zone of "threshold". I can't disagree, except about the 'often' part. My view is that it happens far more often than most people and systems are likely to make recognize. Merely "accepting" that this is how things are supposed to sound is what I have observed to be the case most often. The reason that the large "overkill" flagship amplifier that I build is built like that is that this design *reduces* the likelyhood of such events (reaching the threshold of audible distortion) ever occurring. You can hear that difference when it is presented as a choice. DBT or not. DBT? Then step up to the plate and show it now that you've made the claim. I would be very impressed if you could. However whenever you're asked this, you get evasive. What's to fear if you're so confident about it? Use your system or any other you deem to be revealing enough. Let's do it! If the system &/or amplifier(s) being utilized in the DBT or other listening "test" *both* fail to limit themselves in terms of additive distortion(s), depending on the similarity or lack of similarity of this "failure" one may or may not be able to detect which is which. I totally agree. The rest of the system should not hinder the test. However, if one has had extensive experience with extremely low distortion *systems* one is more likely to simply be able to state that the thing just doesn't sound that good, or isn't sufficiently capable. No, that's not a reliable way to do audio testing, but maybe the best way to find out what you like. It is extremely difficult to a) hear what is missing and b) hear past anything that serves to mask subtle detail - and that includes physiological "hearing shift". (ie. don't try a listening test after driving 20 miles... etc.) You conflicting several issues here but I totally agree with what's in the parentheses. I always wear earplugs when driving long distances. Let me just add that *most* speakers are NOT particularly low distortion devices, so it is then reasonable to say that sufficiently low distortion amps are sufficient, OR that suitably euphonic amplifiers are a *benefit*. There *are* some speakers and drivers that are notably low in distortion, (and there are all sorts of factors to take into account in speakers) but these are still relatively few and far between - not commonly found in the audiophile's LR. Start listening through speakers with the *lowest* available distortion and your opinion of what is audible and what is not is likely to shift somewhat, if not change outright (assuming that you and I still have some HF response left...) :- ) Start by considering tweeters. Work from there. All speakers are pretty bad really, but that's what we have. Recordings are even worse. The best speaker I've ever heard was John Iverson's so-called 'force field' which had no bass and wouldn't play over about 75dB. It had some documented frequency response irregularities, (as did a flame speaker a friend built) but I've never heard anything so clean and transparent in the midrange and high frequencies since. I don't know if any distortion measurements were ever done on them and I'm not familiar with any such data on other massless speakers experimenters have built. Are you? |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Aug 2005 21:35:44 GMT, BEAR wrote:
People who have made much noise on rahe about "objectivist" certainty have given the appearance that they wish to control the test, the test conditions and the test site up until now. If that has changed, it is news to me. Where in the world did you get that idea? I think everyone would prefer that it happen in your normal system, or a system of your choosing; and in fact, the test itself can be designed by you as long as it meets standard DBT protocols. Any other way creates a built-in excuse. Not sure what "standard" protocols consist of. Don't want to guess, right? I don't need to guess, the main requirement is only that the test be double blind. And in the case of electronics, the usual caveats about level matching and not clipping, etc. These need to be CLEARLY DEFINED by those who are MAKING THE CHALLENGE, and POSTED, preferably to a WEBSITE so that they can be read and considered by prospective "challengers." Start a new thread once anyone actually organizes and creates a bona fide challenge fund. Then post it to a website set up for that purpose, at least. Until then, I call upon everyone to cease, desist and stop claiming that such a fund or challenge exists except as a concept or nice idea. I don't call that an "even pace". Randy, it wouldn't take a whole lot to get us (well, me at least) to the "funding" stage. The scenario I see for this is for someone (like you for instance, but I don't mean this as a personal challege to you) to offer up a proposal, stating what units they would like to compare, and a brief description of the method they'd like to use to prove that they can differentiate by sound alone. The goal is to absolutely minimize post test complaints about methodology - we've been through this all before you know. Steve Maki |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 22:46:32 GMT, BEAR wrote: I don't need to come over - *you* are the one who'll be taking the test. We just need to agree on the conditions and the third-party observer. Sure, sounds easy enough to me. But don't forget to put the MONEY in the ESCROW account? You seem to have left that part out. Who will be this mysterious "third party observer?" And, what are your proposed "conditions"? They need to be codified into a DOCUMENT, so that I can sue for the money given the failure to "fork it over", with a basis. :- ) Said document can be hard copy, signed, or on a website with the money in an Escrow held by a legal entity bound by the terms and conditons specified and agreed upon. Should I not find one or more of the "conditions" satisfactory, I would merely decline to participate in the test. _-_-bear |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2005 22:46:13 GMT, BEAR wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 26 Aug 2005 20:54:50 GMT, BEAR wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 23 Aug 2005 02:47:17 GMT, wrote: "In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?" The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of audibility. Quite so, which fells them at the first fence for ABX comparison. Given that this issue in practice limits many amplifiers to an *average* output of perhaps 1 to 5 watts, you might be correct? This assumes a peak to average ratio for most high quality digital source recordings of ~20dB. Ya wouldn't wannna clip 'em, not even for a microsecond, since that just might make the "differences" audible, eh? :- ) Correct - and into most speakers, that's a pretty high listening level. Nice try, but of course you already knew this, so it's just more smoke and mirrors. Time to step up to the plate. Let's do some math Stew. How high a listening level does it take to clip a 100 watt amp? Either 104dB or 125dB, for the range of available 'hi-fi' speakers. But of course, you knew that. Lets consider if it is played through speakers of a typical low sensitivity, audiophile style (let's say 82-86dB SPL) at the average in room listening level of 90dB at a distance of say 3 meters away? Let's agree that many classical pieces (and others) have a ratio of average to peak levels of 20 dB. Actually, the current average is 87dB/w/m, so giving 107dB for peak SPL under anechoic conditions, or around 110-113dB at the listening position in an average listening room for a stereo pair, which is pretty darned loud. In fact, due to my nominally 84dB/w/m speakers being dipoles, and my '50 watt' Krell pumping out a max of 27.4 volts rms into my speakers, that's just about exactly what I get from my own system, and I don't get many complaints that it won't play loudly enough. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... In fact, due to my nominally 84dB/w/m speakers being dipoles, and my '50 watt' Krell pumping out a max of 27.4 volts rms into my speakers, that's just about exactly what I get from my own system, and I don't get many complaints that it won't play loudly enough. -- Many years ago an audio and concert going friend of mine was very careful about high volumes damaging the ribbons in the his original Apogee. Do you have such concerns with your system? I didn't enjoy watching those ribbons jumping all around during music listening, even at ordinary normal listening levels. The ribbons in my Maggies don't attract any such similar attention, why is that? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Strawman, Constructed and Destroyed-Williamson's Folly? | Audio Opinions | |||
| A Strawman, Constructed and Destroyed-Williamson's Folly? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| KISS 113 by Andre Jute | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Rockers Unite to Oust Bush | Audio Opinions | |||
| FS: 3000 watt amp $179!! 900 watt woofers $36!! new- free shipping | General | |||
Linear Mode
