Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric audio

[Rich Teer]

Hi all,

About a year ago I decided to put my (ahem) writing talent to use and
publish a magazine about something I've loved almost my whole life:
high-end audio and music (especially on vinyl). After a lot advice and
encouragement from friends, acquaintances, and industry contacts--not
to mention a LOT of hard work--I'm pleased to announce that today my
dream has become a reality: I have just posted the first issue of
Vinylphile! You can download it--for FREE--from here:
http://www.vinylphilemag.com/pdf/vinylphile-001.pdf

The mag will be published bi-monthly.

Late last year some people from here responded to a survey I posted
about the mag. I'd like to thank everyone who responded to that survey,
and their help in shaping the mag into what it is today.

I hope you enjoy reading the mag as much as I did putting it together!

--
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine

www.vinylphilemag.com

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:22:35 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article >):

> Hi all,
>=20
> About a year ago I decided to put my (ahem) writing talent to use and
> publish a magazine about something I've loved almost my whole life:
> high-end audio and music (especially on vinyl). After a lot advice and
> encouragement from friends, acquaintances, and industry contacts--not
> to mention a LOT of hard work--I'm pleased to announce that today my
> dream has become a reality: I have just posted the first issue of
> Vinylphile! You can download it--for FREE--from here:
> http://www.vinylphilemag.com/pdf/vinylphile-001.pdf
>=20
> The mag will be published bi-monthly.
>=20
> Late last year some people from here responded to a survey I posted
> about the mag. I'd like to thank everyone who responded to that survey,
> and their help in shaping the mag into what it is today.
>=20
> I hope you enjoy reading the mag as much as I did putting it together!
>=20
>=20

A couple of niggles. First, I don't see how anyone can use rock-n-roll as=
an=20
evaluation tool. I'm not knocking the genre, understand, as I realize tha=
t it=20
represents most people's idea, nowadays, about what music is all about. W=
hat=20
I am concerned about is the artificial "studio" quality of most rock =20
recordings(as testified with two of the records used in your M-L Spire=20
review: Pink Floyd=B9s "Dark Side of the Moon", and Dire Strait's "Love O=
ver=20
Gold" being perfect examples). The music is almost all electronic, (with =
a=20
few exceptions) and those things that aren't direct studio feeds, are mik=
ed=20
to the hilt (the drum sets alone on many rock records are covered by as m=
any=20
as 7-10 microphones). You end up reviewing electronic music equipment wit=
h=20
electronic music equipment, and as such can gather no sense of the accura=
cy=20
of the equipment you are auditioning because you have no way of knowing w=
hat=20
the original performance sounds like. You can't know, because until it co=
mes=20
out of the monitoring speakers in the control room it really has no "soun=
d".=20
For instance, I know what a solo violin or a Steinway concert grand piano=
=20
sounds like. I've heard hundreds of them. A Martin or a Fender custom-mad=
e=20
(as many rock group's instruments are) solid-body electric guitar? I have=
n't=20
the foggiest. Add an unknown brand of guitar amp/speaker combo (or more,=20
depending upon the number of guitars used in the performance), the EQ or=20
"sweetening" done by the mix engineer, the flanging, purposeful distortio=
n=20
added to the guitar sounds, and not to mention any vocal EFX added, and y=
ou=20
have a recording of nothing that is "real". Imaging quality? Forget it ,=20
because there isn't any - pan-pots don't count as "imaging" in my estimat=
ion.=20

So, while I realize that most of your readers listen to rock, I have to=20
wonder what good it does using those types of recordings as evaluation to=
ols.

My next niggle has to do with cables. You "test" a $2200 pair of=20
interconnects from Nordost and while acknowledging that many find cables =
to=20
be all alike, you say that you can hear the differences in SOME, not all=20
cables (though you "admit" that they are subtle.). Now, I have no proble=
m=20
with monied people buying expensive "bling" for their stereo systems. Peo=
ple=20
can buy what they want, but I think you are perpetrating an unfortunate u=
rban=20
myth by maintaining that these Nordost "Frey" cables have any sound at al=
l.=20
Especially when you haven't done a double-blind test between these Nordos=
t=20
cables and some other cables. I was once party to a DBT between a pair of=
=20
Nordost Valhalla interconnects ($4000/1 meter pair) and a 1 meter pair of=
=20
Radio Shack's "premium" interconnects (black cable with gold connectors =
and=20
"coiled spring" type strain reliefs on the connectors) which cost about=20
$12/pair. The unanimous verdict from three different groups of listeners =
was=20
that NO ONE could detect the slightest difference between the two!=20

Yet you say that when you put the Nordost Freys into your system, you not=
iced=20
immediately that they were "something special". Well, I guess you did. If=
I=20
put a pair of $2200 interconnects in my system, I'd notice something=20
"special" too! They damn well better be "special"! The problem is, and t=
his=20
is an old story here, that science and bias-controlled DBT tests performe=
d=20
all over the world in the last 20 or so years say otherwise, They aren't=20
special (except for their price) and, indeed, they cannot be special. the=
=20
Laws of physics says NO. =20

So, just a couple of suggestions. use acoustic recordings for your=20
evaluations of sound quality, save the rock-n-roll and other studio-bound=
pop=20
recordings for your personal comments and stay away from "reviewing" cabl=
es.=20
Otherwise, nice first effort and an entertaining read. Well laid-out and=20
professional looking. Good job overall and I look forward to your next=20
issue. =20

[Rich Teer]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Audio Empire wrote:

Hi there,

Thanks for your feedback!

> A couple of niggles. First, I don't see how anyone can use rock-n-roll as=
> an=20
> evaluation tool. I'm not knocking the genre, understand, as I realize tha=

It's easy: whatever genre of music connects with the listener emotionally
is an example of what a good genre is. Now, I agree with you that rock has
limitations (that you mention) that makes it undesirable to be the *only*
genre one uses to evaluate gear. That is why I also use some of my favourite
classical pieces of music (e.g., Lt Kije, Four Seasons, etc.) when evaluating
gear.

> My next niggle has to do with cables. You "test" a $2200 pair of=20
> interconnects from Nordost and while acknowledging that many find cables =

[...]

Cable tests and DBT are hot topics (almost as hot as vi vs EMACS in my other
world!), so I'll just say that I've heard enough differences in cables to
know that different cable sounds are not a fallacy, and that as far as audio
is concerned, I don't think DBT is the only valid tool for evaluating gear.
In other words, I respectfully agree to disagree with you. :-)

> So, just a couple of suggestions. use acoustic recordings for your=20
> evaluations of sound quality, save the rock-n-roll and other studio-bound=
> pop=20
> recordings for your personal comments and stay away from "reviewing" cabl=
> es.=20

I do use some acoustic recordings and will try to use more. There's one more
cable review in the works, but nothing planned beyond that. But I wouldn't
be surprised to see more cable reviews in future.

> Otherwise, nice first effort and an entertaining read. Well laid-out and=20
> professional looking. Good job overall and I look forward to your next=20
> issue. =20

Thanks very much for taking the time to write this constructive criticsm, and
I'm pleased you find the mag to be to your liking overall. The next issue
will be published in early August.

--
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine

www.vinylphilemag.com

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 6:10=A0pm, Rich Teer > wrote:
> Cable tests and DBT are hot topics (almost as hot as vi vs EMACS in my ot=
her
> world!), so I'll just say that I've heard enough differences in cables to
> know that different cable sounds are not a fallacy, and that as far as au=
dio
> is concerned, I don't think DBT is the only valid tool for evaluating gea=
r.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 06:02:44 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> On Jun 10, 6:10=A0pm, Rich Teer > wrote:
>> Cable tests and DBT are hot topics (almost as hot as vi vs EMACS in my ot=
> her
>> world!), so I'll just say that I've heard enough differences in cables to
>> know that different cable sounds are not a fallacy, and that as far as au=
> dio
>> is concerned, I don't think DBT is the only valid tool for evaluating gea=
> r.
>> In other words, I respectfully agree to disagree with you. =A0:-)
>
> For the record, except for vinyl I'm using studio gear (Klein
> +Hummel,Tascam, Rane) and good quality cables (<$5 per meter) because
> so far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that cables make a
> difference, convincing in the sense that the listening tests were free
> from bias.
>
> That knowledge of the identity of the component under test influences
> the test results, has been shown by Floyd Toole ( AES convention
> preprint 3894: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3D6338). The
> evidence presented in his paper makes it quite clear that sighted
> listening tests cannot prove that different components sound
> different, sound in the sense that different sound waves are hitting
> your ear drums.
>
> Double-blind tests have been used in psychoacoustic research since the
> 50ies:
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=3DJASMAN&smode=
> =3Dstrresults&sort=3Dchron&maxdisp=3D25&origquery=3D%28abx%29+&disporigquer=
> y=3D%28abx%29+&threshold=3D0&pjournals=3Djournals%2CJASMAN%2CPMARCW&pyears=
> =3D&possible1=3Dabx&possible1zone=3Darticle&possible3=3Dmunson&possible3zon=
> e=3Dauthor&bool3=3Dand&OUTLOG=3DNO&arttype=3DAbstract,Technical,Patent&view=
> abs=3DJASMAN&key=3DDISPLAY&docID=3D1&page=3D1&chapter=3D0&aqs=3D
>
> The fact that people perceive different components as "sounding"
> different is fine, and when they base their decisions to buy or not to
> buy on that, that's fine too. But the whole building of high-end audio
> is supported by one single, yet extremely fragile pillar, sighted
> listening, and this in itself is a problem because once you notice
> this fragility, as I did some 10 years ago, the pillar fails and the
> whole building collapses.
>
> As one comment on the Audio Engineering Society forum put it:
>
> "This author deplores fear-mongering and considers its use as a
> marketing tool on people with insecurities about their technical
> knowledge, a crime of fraud. The audio marketplace, its many
> commercially oriented magazines, and the manufacturers who advertise
> in these magazines, now rarely if ever, supply graphical engineering
> data or even detailed and accurate print information that might be
> used to make purchasing decisions. The vast majority of equipment
> manuals are a list of sales points and usually not helpful. More and
> more, manufacturers rely on convincing potential customers of the
> superiority of their products by subjective means and anecdotal
> comments from celebrities. This is marketeering--not engineering--and
> it harms consumers everywhere. Those who are forced to purchase
> manufactured products to remain competitive in their services to
> clients, products which can not be tested in personal labs before
> purchases are made, should speak up about what has become an
> excessively greedy and cynical marketplace where increasingly, we are
> victims of marketeers rather than beneficiaries of good engineering."
>
> This sorry state of high-end industry I had to experience when I asked
> more than 30 loudspeaker manufacturers for measurements. I got nothing
> but hot air.
>
> Klaus

You are certainly correct about cables and wiring. Well made, correctly
designed (for the application) cables contribute (and detract) nothing from
the performance of an audio system and the proper size (for the speakers and
amp) zip cord sounds exactly like a multi-thousand dollar run of fire-hose
sized, dedicated speaker cable. Likewise, a 1 meter run of Radio Shack audio
interconnect sounds exactly like a $4000/meter run of Nordost Valhalla
interconnects.

While amps and preamps can and often do sound different, It's not something
that can be actually be measured and often the differences for similar
powered amps comes down to their power supply design and the amps' actual
performance under near clipping conditions (the better power supply will make
an amp perform and thus sound better as the music gets loud, for instance).

As for getting no response from 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, this I can
understand. Most reputable loudspeaker manufacturers publish specs in their
brochures and on their web-sites, but actual measurement of speakers are
highly conditional and room dependent. Most of the specs that a speaker
manufacturer is likely to provide would be meaningless as a comparison tool
without an awful lot of supporting data, This would be data that the
marketing departments of these companies would likely not have and be
disinclined to go and accumulate from the engineering departments just for
one correspondent. With speakers, the best comparison tools are your own ears
and your own taste - either in lengthy listening sessions or in ABX or other
bias controlled tests (if you find DBTs necessary for speakers).

[bob]

On Jul 2, 4:01=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> While amps and preamps can and often do sound different, It's not somethi=
ng
> that can be actually be measured

Of course it is. Amps operating below clipping levels with flat FR
will sound identical; other amps (or the same amps in other
circumstances) will not. Clipping, FR anomalies, and any other
potentially audible forms of distortion can be measured.

<snip>

> As for getting no response from 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, this I can
> understand. Most reputable loudspeaker manufacturers publish specs in the=
ir
> brochures and on their web-sites, but actual measurement of speakers are
> highly conditional and room dependent.

Nonetheless, there are anechoic measurements that correlate well with
in-room listener perceptions. See Toole and Olive.

> Most of the specs that a speaker
> manufacturer is likely to provide would be meaningless as a comparison to=
ol
> without an awful lot of supporting data, This would be data that the
> marketing departments of these companies would likely not have and be
> disinclined to go and accumulate from the engineering departments just fo=
r
> one correspondent.

Whether even the engineering departments had it would depend on how
good said engineering department is. Some will, some won't, I suspect.
But I think it would be great for audio all-around if more consumers
demanded more meaningful speaker specifications than they typically
get.

> With speakers, the best comparison tools are your own ears
> and your own taste - either in lengthy listening sessions or in ABX or ot=
her
> bias controlled tests (if you find DBTs necessary for speakers).

You wouldn't use ABX to compare speakers, and even blind comparisons
would be difficult for consumers to pull off in a meaningful way. For
better or worse, open listening is all we've got to go on in most
cases.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:48:59 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jul 2, 4:01=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> While amps and preamps can and often do sound different, It's not somethi=
> ng
>> that can be actually be measured
>
> Of course it is. Amps operating below clipping levels with flat FR
> will sound identical; other amps (or the same amps in other
> circumstances) will not. Clipping, FR anomalies, and any other
> potentially audible forms of distortion can be measured.

I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion and
an amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the
differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human ear
is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway.

> <snip>
>
>> As for getting no response from 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, this I can
>> understand. Most reputable loudspeaker manufacturers publish specs in the=
> ir
>> brochures and on their web-sites, but actual measurement of speakers are
>> highly conditional and room dependent.
>
> Nonetheless, there are anechoic measurements that correlate well with
> in-room listener perceptions. See Toole and Olive.
>
>> Most of the specs that a speaker
>> manufacturer is likely to provide would be meaningless as a comparison to=
> ol
>> without an awful lot of supporting data, This would be data that the
>> marketing departments of these companies would likely not have and be
>> disinclined to go and accumulate from the engineering departments just fo=
> r
>> one correspondent.
>
> Whether even the engineering departments had it would depend on how
> good said engineering department is. Some will, some won't, I suspect.
> But I think it would be great for audio all-around if more consumers
> demanded more meaningful speaker specifications than they typically
> get.

I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequency
response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like in
real-world listening situations. Therefore, outside of academic
considerations, I, personally find such data more interesting than
meaningful. Perhaps if I designed speakers for a living and knew more about
how what the graphs say actually correlates to what one hears, I would feel
differently, but like most audio enthusiasts, I'm no speaker design expert
and the anechoic measurements might tell me something about what to expect in
the grossest sort of way ("This speaker has a +15 dB hump at around 80Hz,
falling off rapidly below that". Therefore I would expect 1-note juke-box
bass. But that is a VERY gross example of what I'm saying), subtler graphic
representations would leave me (and I suspect most other audio enthusiasts)
clueless.

>> With speakers, the best comparison tools are your own ears
>> and your own taste - either in lengthy listening sessions or in ABX or ot=
> her
>> bias controlled tests (if you find DBTs necessary for speakers).
>
> You wouldn't use ABX to compare speakers, and even blind comparisons
> would be difficult for consumers to pull off in a meaningful way. For
> better or worse, open listening is all we've got to go on in most
> cases.

I wholly agree with you here.

[bob]

On Jul 3, 11:22=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

> I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion=
and
> an =A0amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the
> differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human e=
ar
> is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway.

You're not thinking about the right kinds of distortion. THD and IM
are typically so low that they are not audible. (Some tube gear
excepted.) The kinds of distortion that can be audible are:

1. clipping distortion, as you alluded to earlier, and

2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches

Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled
testing.

<snip>

> I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequ=
ency
> response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like=
in
> real-world listening situations.

"What a speaker sounds like to you" is a combination of its actual
output and your state of mind, so obviously measurements are not going
to correlate with the latter. But Toole and Olive have shown a clear
correlation between certain measurements and general listener
preferences. If you have those measurements available, you could
deduce that most people (and you are probably but not definitely like
most people) would prefer speaker A to speaker B. At the very least,
you can eliminate speakers that are unlikely to satisfy because of
severe FR dips or off-axis response, for example.

Still, none of this overrides your state of mind. If your state of
mind is, "panels are better than monkey coffins," then you are likely
to prefer a poorly measuring electrostatic to a good-measuring box
speaker. Which is fine, since you the one you have to make happy.

bob

[bob]

On Jul 3, 10:42=A0am, wrote:

> Actually no on both of the above points. =A0While ears are the means by
> which we recieve audio signals they are only part of the chain for best
> speaker comparison. =A0Controlled unbiased testing is very much possible =
and
> desirable here as in any bit of gear. =A0
>
> One can in this case because speakers usually have differences even
> determine choice based on preference. =A0One can take preference choices =
and
> design speakers accordingly.

We aren't talking about designing speakers. We are talking about
consumers choosing speakers. And no, there is no way for the average
consumer to conduct a fully controlled comparison of speakers. Nor, as
has been noted, do most manufacturers provide the kinds of
measurements you would need in order to correlate them to typical
listener preferences. And even if you could, there's still the
possibility that your preferences would be somewhat different.

bob

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jul 3, 11:22=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion and
>> an amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the
>> differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human ear
>> is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway.
>
> You're not thinking about the right kinds of distortion. THD and IM
> are typically so low that they are not audible. (Some tube gear
> excepted.) The kinds of distortion that can be audible are:
>
> 1. clipping distortion, as you alluded to earlier, and

Well yes, of course.
>
> 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches

Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as the
reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs.

>
> Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled
> testing.

Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to
eliminate either on the design end or the listening end.

> <snip>
>
>> I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequ=
> ency
>> response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like=
> in
>> real-world listening situations.
>
> "What a speaker sounds like to you" is a combination of its actual
> output and your state of mind, so obviously measurements are not going
> to correlate with the latter. But Toole and Olive have shown a clear
> correlation between certain measurements and general listener
> preferences. If you have those measurements available, you could
> deduce that most people (and you are probably but not definitely like
> most people) would prefer speaker A to speaker B. At the very least,
> you can eliminate speakers that are unlikely to satisfy because of
> severe FR dips or off-axis response, for example.

I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics by a
company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months. I
thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with. I
felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 19th
century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects
didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally needed
to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and then
note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the
flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speaker
toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead center
of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move your
head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency
response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person speaker
and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimately,
failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of these
unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis where
they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision? Unless you are a very
committed listener, bent of "perfection at ANY cost, you would be one very
unhappy buyer!

> Still, none of this overrides your state of mind. If your state of
> mind is, "panels are better than monkey coffins," then you are likely
> to prefer a poorly measuring electrostatic to a good-measuring box
> speaker. Which is fine, since you the one you have to make happy.

What about a "good" measuring electrostatic like the Martin-Logan Vistas,
which is what I finally settled upon after my debacle with the Innersounds?

By the way, I recently spent a long listening session with a pair of the new
Magnepan MG-1.7 ribbon speakers (2K/pair). I must say that they are very,
very good, doing many things correctly. They aren't as low in distortion as a
good electrostatic because they aren't push-pull, but they are damned close.

[bob]

On Jul 3, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote
>
> > 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches
>
> Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as th=
e
> reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs.

I think I've said this to you before, but you suffer some very basic
misunderstandings about DBTs. They typically are not designed to
determine *why* two components sound different, only that they do.

> > Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled
> > testing.
>
> Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to
> eliminate either on the design end or the listening end.

This is unclear. Are you saying that amplifiers typically have audible
FR differences? That is not the case.

<snip>

> I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics b=
y a
> company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months=
.. I
> thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with=
.. I
> felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 1=
9th
> century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects
> didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally nee=
ded
> to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and =
then
> note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the
> flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speak=
er
> toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead ce=
nter
> of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move y=
our
> head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency
> response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person spe=
aker
> and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimat=
ely,
> failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of th=
ese
> unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis whe=
re
> they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision?

That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would
definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would
have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to
it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having
difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.)

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 14:25:05 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jul 3, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote
>>
>>> 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches
>>
>> Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as th=
> e
>> reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs.
>
> I think I've said this to you before, but you suffer some very basic
> misunderstandings about DBTs. They typically are not designed to
> determine *why* two components sound different, only that they do.
>
>>> Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled
>>> testing.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to
>> eliminate either on the design end or the listening end.
>
> This is unclear. Are you saying that amplifiers typically have audible
> FR differences? That is not the case.

No. I'm saying that if FR differences exist due to impedance mismatches, and
other load-dependent factors, they are difficult to control for either the
consumer or the designer (who cannot anticipate how EVERY speaker with which
his design is likely to be used will interact with his amplifier). There is
good reason to believe that speakers with amps built-in to them are actually
not a bad idea.

But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different, but
subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at the
moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and
that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any
differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my
Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear in a
DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening.

> <snip>
>
>> I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics b=
> y a
>> company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months=
> . I
>> thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with=
> . I
>> felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 1=
> 9th
>> century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects
>> didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally nee=
> ded
>> to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and =
> then
>> note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the
>> flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speak=
> er
>> toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead ce=
> nter
>> of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move y=
> our
>> head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency
>> response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person spe=
> aker
>> and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimat=
> ely,
>> failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of th=
> ese
>> unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis whe=
> re
>> they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision?
>
> That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would
> definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would
> have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to
> it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having
> difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.)

That was my point. You might be right about the info Klaus was seeking. Of
course he didn't specify....

[bob]

On Jul 3, 8:59=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different,=
but
> subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at t=
he
> moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and
> that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any
> differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my
> Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear =
in a
> DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening.

Have you actually done a DBT to compare this amp to another? It
involves something more than listening to both and deciding if they
sound different or not.

If your Krell does sound different in a properly controlled test, then
one of the amps is seriously bad, or the M-Ls are posing a
particularly difficult load that only the Krell can handle.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 21:48:59 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jul 3, 8:59=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different,=
> but
>> subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at t=
> he
>> moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and
>> that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any
>> differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my
>> Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear =
> in a
>> DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening.
>
> Have you actually done a DBT to compare this amp to another?

Oh yes.

> It involves something more than listening to both and deciding if they
> sound different or not.
>
> If your Krell does sound different in a properly controlled test, then
> one of the amps is seriously bad, or the M-Ls are posing a
> particularly difficult load that only the Krell can handle.

They ALL can't be bad. The M-L's drop to below 2 ohms (IIRC) at 20 KHz, but
that's pretty inconsequential.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 10:25=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would
> definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would
> have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to
> it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having
> difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.)


That's right, I was asking for a full set of measurements, on-axis,
off-axis, waterfall, step/impulse response, distortion, pair matching,
group delay. Some manufacturers told me I wouldn't understand the
graphs, so they didn't send any. Others told that they did not do
measurements at all and referred to audio mags. Others told me that
anechoic measurements did not relate to how speakers behave in rooms.
Again others did not reply at all. As I said, a sorry state.

Klaus

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:50:39 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> On Jul 3, 10:25=A0pm, bob > wrote:
>> That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would
>> definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would
>> have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to
>> it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having
>> difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.)
>
>
> That's right, I was asking for a full set of measurements, on-axis,
> off-axis, waterfall, step/impulse response, distortion, pair matching,
> group delay. Some manufacturers told me I wouldn't understand the
> graphs, so they didn't send any. Others told that they did not do
> measurements at all and referred to audio mags. Others told me that
> anechoic measurements did not relate to how speakers behave in rooms.
> Again others did not reply at all. As I said, a sorry state.
>
> Klaus
>

Those who told you that anechoic measurements do not relate to how speakers
sound in rooms DO have a point, but if all speaker manufacturers provided
those kinds of measurements taken according to some kind of industry
standard, we WOULD have a common reference for comparison, which is more than
we have now.