So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

I have come across several references to an article on the topic of
so-called hi rez audio files
recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came.

"24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is here:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:28:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> I have come across several references to an article on the topic of
> so-called hi rez audio files
> recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came.
>
> "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is here:
>
> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>

Well written article and there's a lot of truth to it. However in his zeal to
make his point, the author has made a few assumptions that I don't think are
really in evidence.

1) In spite of the author's premise, I really don't think that ANYONE expects
a digital system frequency response beyond 22.5KHz to actually have any (or
at least not very much) actual program content.

(a) Few microphones have any response much above 20 KHz and most large
capsule mikes of the type generally used for recording have a huge resonance
peak somewhere between about 8 and 16 KHz and drop off rapidly above that.

(b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192,
and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY out
of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with 96
and above merely being overkill.

2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of understanding
of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of
super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the
golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super hearing"
is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days
are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear
much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers or,
more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth)
they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still posses
"golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask? Because all the
term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about the
sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in
reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify and
quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different
types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the ability
to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's all
it is. When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still
listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it! Things
like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass, the
room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the
speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc.

3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is
16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit
floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format would
be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the passband,
and it gives the engineer lots of headroom.

4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed
that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!

Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone
contemplating purchasing high-res downloads.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed
> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!


Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC?

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio
> content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the
> files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's
> anything but lossless!

What is wrong with FLAC?

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:28:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> I have come across several references to an article on the topic of
>> so-called hi rez audio files
>> recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came.
>>
>> "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is here:
>>
>> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>>
>
> Well written article and there's a lot of truth to it. However in his zeal
> to
> make his point, the author has made a few assumptions that I don't think
> are
> really in evidence.
>
> 1) In spite of the author's premise, I really don't think that ANYONE
> expects
> a digital system frequency response beyond 22.5KHz to actually have any
> (or
> at least not very much) actual program content.

I just answered a post from a fairly widely respected member of a pro audio
forum who was bragging about how much > 20 KHz content he was seeing in
recordings.

> (a) Few microphones have any response much above 20 KHz and most large
> capsule mikes of the type generally used for recording have a huge
> resonance
> peak somewhere between about 8 and 16 KHz and drop off rapidly above that.

He was rebutting this exact issue. FWIW I agree with you.

> (b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192,
> and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY
> out
> of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with
> 96
> and above merely being overkill.

Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such
humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all.

> 2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of
> understanding
> of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of
> super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the
> golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super
> hearing"
> is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days
> are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear
> much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers
> or,
> more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth)
> they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still
> posses
> "golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask?

My answer is: denial. Case in point. A few weeks ago I was sitting next to a
reasonably well-known *name* in high end audio at a listening session. I was
complaining vigorously about the audible hum and noise. A number of people
around us shared my concern but Mr. name said that he heard nothing wrong.

> Because all the
> term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about
> the
> sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in
> reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify
> and
> quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different
> types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the
> ability
> to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's
> all
> it is.

I'm on both sides of this argument. To some degree effectiveness at audio is
about both raw ability but it is also, and perhaps more preeminently as you
seem to be saying, about identifying the various sounds in what you hear.
However, through the magic of sighted evaluations there is also a large
subset of audiophiles and professionals whose hearing seems to be mostly in
their wallets. Any time you want to you can expose them with a blind test,
whether stealthy or in the open. Many have become too crafty to trap that
way. It's not a homogenious world out there.

> When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still
> listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it!
> Things
> like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass,
> the
> room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the
> speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc.

Of course, and us blind testing advocates agree that a lot of problems like
those don't need blind tests to identify or prove. These can all be faults
and artifacts that are well above the well-known thresholds of audibility,
or not.

> 3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is
> 16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit
> floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format
> would
> be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the
> passband,
> and it gives the engineer lots of headroom.

On balance, if you know what you are doing you can make great-sounding
recordings with 16/44. 24 bits gets you 144 dB dynamic range, but in fact
audio gear that performs at the even *just* 20 bit level is still not sold
on every street corner. There are few live venues and recording studios that
have even 13 bits of acosutical dynamic range.

> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
> flawed
> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!

I don't know about that. In my tests and usage FLAC has proven itself to be
bit-perfect and sonically ideal. However, I have to admit that its
relatively gentle approximately 2:1 compression is not why I like it or use
it. What I like about FLAC is its support for tagging that thoroughly
eclipses what legacy .wav files support.

> Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone
> contemplating purchasing high-res downloads.

Especially when combined what is known about 50% of extant so-called hi rez
recordings having been through low-rez (typically analog recording)
production steps that limit their as-delivered performance to something like
12 bit resolution and CD format bandpass, but with more response variations.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
>> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
>> flawed
>> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!
>
>
> Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC?
>
> rgds
> \SK
>

FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay
Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software,
different software compressors available out there use different FLAC
compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Two of the
most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. When
compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8
compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound. Since
there's really no way for the consumer to know what setting is being used,
Dr. Zeilig recommends that the high-res download industry avoid supplying
downloaded high-resolution music in the FLAC or other compression formats,
if possible.

I am not allowed (by the moderators) to mention my source for this info, but
you can find it online by googling "FLAC vs WAV" or just "Dr, Charles Zeilig
and Jay Clawson".

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):


BTW, Arny. Welcome back. We've missed you!


>> (b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192,
>> and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY
>> out
>> of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with
>> 96
>> and above merely being overkill.
>
> Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such
> humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all.

While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive nature
of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist in
analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz), then
gentle, analog filtering could be done therefore eliminating the pre-ringing.

>
>> 2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of
>> understanding
>> of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of
>> super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the
>> golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super
>> hearing"
>> is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days
>> are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear
>> much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers
>> or,
>> more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth)
>> they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still
>> posses
>> "golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask?
>
> My answer is: denial. Case in point. A few weeks ago I was sitting next to a
> reasonably well-known *name* in high end audio at a listening session. I was
> complaining vigorously about the audible hum and noise. A number of people
> around us shared my concern but Mr. name said that he heard nothing wrong.

OK, this, of course can happen. The title "Golden-eared Audiophile", is,
after all, self-annointed, and as such often gets applied to people who are,
to quote Clint Eastwood as 'Dirty Harry' , "...legends in their own minds."
OTOH, I have known more than a few audiophiles who have developed a fine
sense of listening acuity and can hear many things that the average listener
doesn't hear. There is a big difference between between "can't hear" and
"doesn't hear" Real Golden Eared types understand this difference and many of
them realize that being golden-eared does NOT in any way disqualify one from
being susceptible to sighted and other kinds of expectational bias. Golden
Ears are useful tools, to be sure, but when comparing things, they are no
substitute for the well executed bias-controlled test.

>> Because all the
>> term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about
>> the
>> sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in
>> reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify
>> and
>> quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different
>> types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the
>> ability
>> to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's
>> all
>> it is.
>
> I'm on both sides of this argument. To some degree effectiveness at audio is
> about both raw ability but it is also, and perhaps more preeminently as you
> seem to be saying, about identifying the various sounds in what you hear.
> However, through the magic of sighted evaluations there is also a large
> subset of audiophiles and professionals whose hearing seems to be mostly in
> their wallets. Any time you want to you can expose them with a blind test,
> whether stealthy or in the open. Many have become too crafty to trap that
> way. It's not a homogenious world out there.

Amen there. The old "this costs 10-times what that costs, so this must be
better" syndrome is hard to fight. That's why DBTs are so important. OTOH,
some people just want nice things and would buy the 10X component even if a
DBT showed both units to perform identically.

>> When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still
>> listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it!
>> Things
>> like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass,
>> the
>> room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the
>> speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc.
>
> Of course, and us blind testing advocates agree that a lot of problems like
> those don't need blind tests to identify or prove. These can all be faults
> and artifacts that are well above the well-known thresholds of audibility,
> or not.

Yep. Listening and Objective or bias-controlled testing are not mutually
exclusive concepts. They need to be used together in order to make truly
informed music system selections and to stay away from the snake-oil.

>> 3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is
>> 16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit
>> floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format
>> would
>> be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the
>> passband,
>> and it gives the engineer lots of headroom.
>
> On balance, if you know what you are doing you can make great-sounding
> recordings with 16/44. 24 bits gets you 144 dB dynamic range, but in fact
> audio gear that performs at the even *just* 20 bit level is still not sold
> on every street corner. There are few live venues and recording studios that
> have even 13 bits of acosutical dynamic range.

In a studio environment, this is absolutely true. However it is less true in
location recording. The ability to have plenty of headroom is more than just
a luxury. Sometimes it is the difference between success and failure -
especially if you are recording a group cold.
>
>> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
>> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
>> flawed
>> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!
>
> I don't know about that. In my tests and usage FLAC has proven itself to be
> bit-perfect and sonically ideal. However, I have to admit that its
> relatively gentle approximately 2:1 compression is not why I like it or use
> it. What I like about FLAC is its support for tagging that thoroughly
> eclipses what legacy .wav files support.

Well a lot of research has been done by a Dr. Charles Zeilig whose tests seem
to show that FLAC algorithms vary all over the place and different settings
yield different quality results. Apparently FLAC-Zero and FLAC-8 sound
significantly poorer than does the WAV file from which it was compressed.
>
>> Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone
>> contemplating purchasing high-res downloads.
>
> Especially when combined what is known about 50% of extant so-called hi rez
> recordings having been through low-rez (typically analog recording)
> production steps that limit their as-delivered performance to something like
> 12 bit resolution and CD format bandpass, but with more response variations.

I don't think that the fact that many of the sources for so-called Hi-Rez
downloads are analog tapes is particularly important, but I do think that the
fact that many recordings being sold as 24-bit 96 KHz and above are really
red book masters that have up-sampled to 24/96 is a rip-off and those guilty
of selling up-sampled standard resolution digital files as true high-rez
should be punished. To put that another way:

Digitizing an analog master tape with a 24-bit/88.2 KHz (or higher )ADC to
yield a "high-rez" copy is OK, but up-sampling a standard resolution digital
master to 24/88.2 KHz or higher is cheating. Of course, that's just my
opinion, you understand.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
>>> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
>>> flawed
>>> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!
>>
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC?
>
> FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and
> Mr. Jay Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio
> software, different software compressors available out there use
> different FLAC compression rates and different versions of the FLAC
> standard. Two of the most widely used compression schemes for FLAC
> are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. When compared to a standard uncompressed
> WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8 compression settings yielded
> noticeably and measureably poorer sound.

This doesn't make any sense. FLAC files are bit-for-bit perfect when
uncompressed. How can they sound different? I blame Audiophilia
Nervosa.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio
>>> content
>>> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
>>> flawed
>>> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!
>>
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC?
>>
>> rgds
>> \SK
>>
>
> FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay
> Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software,
> different software compressors available out there use different FLAC
> compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard.

Zelig and Clawson have made a few contributions to the literature of audio
nervosa, as another poster titled it. They are working outside of their area
of professional endeavor and are in print as having made a large number of
"Exceptional claims" that violate the laws of physics and reason.

> Two of the
> most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero.
> When
> compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8
> compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound.

Since these are both lossless compresison schemes that return bit-perfect
copies of the origional files, it is impossible for their use to result in
measurably poorer sound. Any scheme that finds differences between
arithmetically identical streams of data would ordinarly be considered to be
greviously flawed.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content
>>> provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so
>>> flawed
>>> that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless!
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC?
>>
>> rgds
>> \SK
>>
>
> FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay
> Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software,
> different software compressors available out there use different FLAC
> compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Two of the
> most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero.

Yet there are no such things. 8, 0, etc are so called compression levels --
those are command line options to set of 5-6 compression algorithm parameters
(i.e. order of linear prediction, block size, use of exchaustive model search,
use and type of so called midside coding (all technicalities of entropy
extracion step), and range (min and max value) of so called Rice partitions
orders -- again purely technical parameters of losless transcoding of fixed bit
length words (numebers) into variable length ones where more frequent ones are
shorter). Those levels translate into speed at which compression occurss and
also influence average compression effectivenes. Decompression speed is very
little affevted byt those, and decompression allways results in the *very*
*same* *bit* *exact* copy of the original audio data.

> When
> compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8

When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file there are *identical*.
Both "flac -0" and "flac -8" as well as "flac -5" as well as "flac -l 12 -e -M
-b 1152" generate files which decode to *bit* *exact* copies. Those men either
don't have a clue or are deliberately dishonest or the combination of the two.

> compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound.

The only thing which could vary is so called replaygain feature which can be
turned on (flac file must be processed by another tool from flac-toolset family
which calculates it) -- this feature is automatic *volume* setting per track or
per album. It's a pair of values stored in file header which describe average
(averaged using psychoacouaticak model which is an elaboration on RMS level
measurement) and peak levels. Those allow replay software or hradware to
automatically adjust volume so varius recording play at similar loudness. That
info must be explicitly added (as a result of additional processing) by someone
preparing flac files. End even if present this feature could be ignored or even
compeletly stripped out if one so desires.

ReplayGain has nothing to -0 or -8 or -whatever_digit, not -l nor -r nor -m nor
-M nor -b options (those options allow for finetuning of compression preformance
i.e. speed against effectiveness).

So, if those men wrote about that feature then all would be OK. But they did
not. So again, those men talk about stuff they have no clue about (or in fact
have but are dishonest).

> Since
> there's really no way for the consumer to know what setting is being used,

It doesn't matter. Result is bit exact.

> Dr. Zeilig recommends that the high-res download industry avoid supplying
> downloaded high-resolution music in the FLAC or other compression formats,
> if possible.

Dr. Zeilig (who apparently has PhD in molecular biology not audio engeneering,
nor acoustics, not even physics nor physiology, and is known of similar antics
since eighties) spouts utter nonsense.

>
> I am not allowed (by the moderators) to mention my source for this info, but
> you can find it online by googling "FLAC vs WAV" or just "Dr, Charles Zeilig
> and Jay Clawson".

Again, FLAC is fully lossless format - i.e. it's bit exact. You could add WAV
header to some application install file or even to this very text. You can then
compress it using any compressor with any lossless FLAC compression sheme then
uncompress and congert it bvack to WAV it using different uncompressor, then
strip that WAV header and you'd get the exact copy of that file or newsgroup text.


BTW found juicy fragments of that text series by those men, one is here:

"Although JRMC reported an accurate rip for all the speeds, and are bit-for-bit
identical at all read speeds, we are still able to detect sonic differences in
the resulting file. We know these results drive engineers crazy. We would love
it if someone could come up with a definitive explanation that could provide
input to software developers."

I have an explanation but it's not to be shown in public forum due to
significant amount of "explicit lyrics" and acustations off either serius mental
shortcommings or serious, bordering criminal, dishonesty.


IOW. all that could be dismissed safely -- they are either dishonest or
incapable or both -- but for the reader all those options mean the same: dismiss
it as it's just a load of nonsense.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote

>> Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such
>> humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all.
>
> While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive
> nature
> of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist
> in
> analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz),
> then

It turns out that sharp-cutoff digital filtering can be tuned so that it has
pre-ringing, post-ringing, or anything in-between. These days most digital
filter parameters are calculated using sophisticated mathematical tools such
as Matlab. Worked out examples can be found here:
http://www.mathworks.com/products/dsp-system/demos.html?file=/products/demos/shipping/dsp/lpfirdemo.html.

Digital Filters can be designed to be minimum phase, in which case there is
no pre-ringing at all, just like conventional analog filters. Commonly they
are designed to be linear phase or zero-phase which implies pre-ringing.
Digital filtering of many kinds is easily implemented with software and
applied to high sample rate digital audio files.DBTs have been done
comparing various approaches. The general outcome has been that the 22.05
KHz Nyquist frequency of Red Book audio is high enough that there is
already considerable margin, and the details of the filter design are fairly
non-critical.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:22 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article >):

<snip>
> IOW. all that could be dismissed safely -- they are either dishonest or
> incapable or both -- but for the reader all those options mean the same:
> dismiss
> it as it's just a load of nonsense.

Thanks, I read their "papers" and thought that the "points" system they used
to evaluate playback "quality" was a bit suspicious, but the the articles
seemed so "scholarly" that I accepted the results (until such time as those
results were successfully challenged - as you have done). As for myself I've
never used FLAC. I use Apple Lossless Compression in iTunes to rip my CDs for
my iPod Touch and my Logitech Squeezebox. In an admittedly flawed DBT*
between the ALC file and the CD itself, I could detect no difference between
the two with multiple samples tried over multiple sessions.

*The CD player and the Squeezebox Touch fed the same SPDIF inputs of a DAC
via a digital input selector switch, and both played through the same
amplifier at the same volume control settings through the same input, etc. A
second party switched between the two digital inputs using a remote control.
I couldn't see him (he was sitting behind me) and I had no idea when or even
if he switched inputs. Not scientific, perhaps, but both sources were at
EXACTLY the same level. My trusty HP3400A audio voltmeter assured me of that.



>
> rgds
> \SK

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:05:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>
>>> Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such
>>> humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all.
>>
>> While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive
>> nature
>> of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist
>> in
>> analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz),
>> then
>
> It turns out that sharp-cutoff digital filtering can be tuned so that it has
> pre-ringing, post-ringing, or anything in-between. These days most digital
> filter parameters are calculated using sophisticated mathematical tools such
> as Matlab. Worked out examples can be found here:
>
http://www.mathworks.com/products/dsp-
system/demos.html?file=/products/demos/s
> hipping/dsp/lpfirdemo.html.
>
> Digital Filters can be designed to be minimum phase, in which case there is
> no pre-ringing at all, just like conventional analog filters. Commonly they
> are designed to be linear phase or zero-phase which implies pre-ringing.
> Digital filtering of many kinds is easily implemented with software and
> applied to high sample rate digital audio files.DBTs have been done
> comparing various approaches. The general outcome has been that the 22.05
> KHz Nyquist frequency of Red Book audio is high enough that there is
> already considerable margin, and the details of the filter design are fairly
> non-critical.

Thanks for the links.

[Wrettyirraple]

Ïðèâåò.
áëþäà èç ñûðûõ ÿèö (http://www.alenaa.ru/buterbrody/48-buterbrod-s-yajcami.html) - ÿéöà ôàðøèðîâàííûå ïàøòåòîì
îðèãèíàëüíûå áëþäà èç ÿèö (http://www.alenaa.ru/yaica-s-pomidorami/199-zapekanka-iz-yaic-syra-i-ovoshhej.html) - ÿéöà ôàðøèðîâàííûå ñåëåäêîé

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:54:05 PM UTC-5, Audio Empire wrote:

> Thanks, I read their "papers" and thought that the "points" system they u=
sed=20
> to evaluate playback "quality" was a bit suspicious, but the the articles=
=20
> seemed so "scholarly" that I accepted the results=20

Really? Including the last article, where they recommended upgrading power =
cords? Worth at least 20 "points," as I recall. About what you'd expect fro=
m The Absolute Sound. (BTW, what kind of secret source do you have for arti=
cles that are available on any newsstand?)

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:49:41 -0800, wrote
(in article >):

> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:54:05 PM UTC-5, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I read their "papers" and thought that the "points" system they used
>> to evaluate playback "quality" was a bit suspicious, but the the articles
>> seemed so "scholarly" that I accepted the results=
>
> Really? Including the last article, where they recommended upgrading
> power cords? Worth at least 20 "points," as I recall. About what
> you'd expect from The Absolute Sound. (BTW, what kind of secret
> source do you have for articles that are available on any newsstand?)
>
> bob
>

Hmmm, I must have missed the part about the power cords, I don't
remember them saying that. OTOH, if they DID say that, they have lost
all credibility with me. My stand on this issue is certainly no
secret. Both physics and DBT results tell me that the notion of power
cords, interconnects, and speaker cables affecting the sound of a
stereo system is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Now, where did I say that my source was secret? I said that the
moderators of the rec.audio.high-end news group won't allow me to
mention my source. I didn't say it was secret. I write for a number of
audio publications and I wish to keep my real identity anonymous. The
moderators of this NG don't want me to remain anonymous, they want me
to fully disclose my affiliations. I offered to disclose that info to
THEM, as long as they didn't spill the beans on the NG, but they found
that condition unacceptable. The compromise we came to was that I
didn't have to reveal my true identity, or tell what magazines I
write for as long as I never directly MENTIONED any audio publications
in any of my posts. Hence my inability to tell the previous poster
where I read the aforementioned papers. No secret, here. Merely
following orders.*

[ Moderator's note: After Mr. Empire mentioned in a post that he
worked for an audio publication, we invoked the RAHE guideline:

If you are a dealer or manufacturer of audio equipment, or work
for any audio-related businesses, it is expected that you mention
your affiliation in any post directly or indirectly regarding a
product you sell or manufacture (e.g., if a post concerns a
competing product to your own, it would be appropriate to include
your affiliation).

Mr. Empire declined to disclose his affiliations and so we told him we
would not accept any posts from him that discussed specific audio
magazines. -- deb ]

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:33:24 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:


> Hmmm, I must have missed the part about the power cords, I don't
> remember them saying that.

It's in the fourth and last article. Sort of tells you all you need to
know about the basis of their "points" system, doesn't it? If Stephen
Colbert were an audio reviewer, he would praise these articles for
their scienciness.

<snip>

> Now, where did I say that my source was secret? I said that the
> moderators of the rec.audio.high-end news group won't allow me to
> mention my source. I didn't say it was secret. I write for a number of
> audio publications and I wish to keep my real identity anonymous. The
> moderators of this NG don't want me to remain anonymous, they want me
> to fully disclose my affiliations. I offered to disclose that info to
> THEM, as long as they didn't spill the beans on the NG, but they found
> that condition unacceptable. The compromise we came to was that I
> didn't have to reveal my true identity, or tell what magazines I
> write for as long as I never directly MENTIONED any audio publications
> in any of my posts. Hence my inability to tell the previous poster
> where I read the aforementioned papers. No secret, here. Merely
> following orders.

Fair enough. Referring to "my source" made it sound far more
mysterious.

Since I'm not bound by the same constraints, I'll just mention that
these four articles have appeared in the last four issues of that
bastion of science, The Absolute Sound. John Atkinson claims to have
had first crack at them, and turned them down. But no science is too
pseudo for Harley.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:32:28 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> On Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:33:24 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>
>> Hmmm, I must have missed the part about the power cords, I don't
>> remember them saying that.
>
> It's in the fourth and last article. Sort of tells you all you need to
> know about the basis of their "points" system, doesn't it? If Stephen
> Colbert were an audio reviewer, he would praise these articles for
> their scienciness.

Yes, I went back and reread it. They certainly did say that.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Now, where did I say that my source was secret? I said that the
>> moderators of the rec.audio.high-end news group won't allow me to
>> mention my source. I didn't say it was secret. I write for a number of
>> audio publications and I wish to keep my real identity anonymous. The
>> moderators of this NG don't want me to remain anonymous, they want me
>> to fully disclose my affiliations. I offered to disclose that info to
>> THEM, as long as they didn't spill the beans on the NG, but they found
>> that condition unacceptable. The compromise we came to was that I
>> didn't have to reveal my true identity, or tell what magazines I
>> write for as long as I never directly MENTIONED any audio publications
>> in any of my posts. Hence my inability to tell the previous poster
>> where I read the aforementioned papers. No secret, here. Merely
>> following orders.
>
> Fair enough. Referring to "my source" made it sound far more
> mysterious.

In this case "my source" just means "where I got the info". No mystery is
stated or inferred.
>
> Since I'm not bound by the same constraints, I'll just mention that
> these four articles have appeared in the last four issues of that
> bastion of science, The Absolute Sound. John Atkinson claims to have
> had first crack at them, and turned them down. But no science is too
> pseudo for Harley.
>
> bob

Apparently. He ought to know better, he certainly is no dummy. When I worked
with him many years ago in another "life" he seemed to have more than a
working knowledge of physics and electronics. But this brings me to a problem
that I have with almost all audio publications. At most of the ones with
which I am familiar, the various editors will tell you privately that the
idea of power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables having any sonic worth
is ridiculous, but that those products represent good advertising dollars,
that they cannot afford to get on these manufacturers' bad side or to ignore
them. I find this somewhat dishonest. I'll tell you another little secret -
it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
(beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences.
At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than
they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure,
but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:37:19 PM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:

> But this brings me to a problem=20
> that I have with almost all audio publications. At most of the ones with=
=20
> which I am familiar, the various editors will tell you privately that the=
=20
> idea of power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables having any sonic w=
orth=20
> is ridiculous, but that those products represent good advertising dollars=
,=20
> that they cannot afford to get on these manufacturers' bad side or to ign=
ore=20
> them. I find this somewhat dishonest.

Yeah, but it's that or moronic. There's no third choice.

I'd have bet they were true believers--either they believed in the magic of=
cables from the get-go, or their economic interest led them to drink the K=
ool-Aid. There's at least a tiny bit of integrity in knowing and admitting =
privately that you're promoting snake oil. Emphasis on tiny.

> I'll tell you another little secret -=20
> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss=
=20
> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these day=
s=20
> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differen=
ces.=20
> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike =
than=20
> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more =
are=20
> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be s=
ure,=20
> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.

This is hardly a secret to those of us familiar with Tom Nousaine's 1990 AE=
S lit review of DBT amplifier tests. But this is actually very good news. I=
t means there's a straightforward route to quality sound:
1. Choose a capable and good-sounding set of speakers.
2. Make sure you have enough amp power to drive them (trivial in most cases=
, but there are exceptions).
3. Set up your room carefully (the hardest step of all).
That's pretty much it. Now if we could find a few publications to promote t=
his approach, rather than promoting the snake oil, maybe we can interest a=
few more people in the benefits of good sound.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:40:07 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> On Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:37:19 PM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> But this brings me to a problem=20
>> that I have with almost all audio publications. At most of the ones with
>> which I am familiar, the various editors will tell you privately that the
>> idea of power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables having any sonic worth
>> is ridiculous, but that those products represent good advertising dollars,
>> that they cannot afford to get on these manufacturers' bad side or to ignore
>> them. I find this somewhat dishonest.
>
> Yeah, but it's that or moronic. There's no third choice.
>
> I'd have bet they were true believers--either they believed in the magic
> of cables from the get-go, or their economic interest led them to drink
> the Kool-Aid. There's at least a tiny bit of integrity in knowing and
> admitting privately that you're promoting snake oil. Emphasis on tiny.

Yeah, well, I'm sure that some are "true believers." It's easy to do, I've
been fooled. I've swapped cables and "thought" I heard a distinct difference.
Expectational bias is a very powerful illusion and humans are VERY
susceptible to it. What kept me from drinking the "Kool-Aid" was my
electronics engineering background and the fact that I worked in an Aerospace
company's 'Cable Lab' for three years testing all kinds of cables and
connectors carrying about every kind of signal that one can possibly imagine.
I knew that what I thought I was hearing was not just unlikely, it was
impossible!

>> I'll tell you another little secret -
>> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
>> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
>> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences.
>> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than
>> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
>> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure,
>> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.
>
> This is hardly a secret to those of us familiar with Tom Nousaine's 1990
> AES lit review of DBT amplifier tests. But this is actually very good
> news. It means there's a straightforward route to quality sound:
> 1. Choose a capable and good-sounding set of speakers.
> 2. Make sure you have enough amp power to drive them (trivial in most
> cases, but there are exceptions).
> 3. Set up your room carefully (the hardest step of all). That's pretty
> much it. Now if we could find a few publications to promote this
> approach, rather than promoting the snake oil, maybe we can interest a
> few more people in the benefits of good sound.

When I said "secret" I meant it in the sense that the similarity of
amplifiers is a secret as far as the audio press is concerned. If they don't
discuss vanishingly miniscule differences in amplifiers in amplifiers, what's
there to write about?

It's ironic really. Audio types used to laugh at Julian Hirsch's equipment
reviews at the long defunct "Stereo Review" for stating in seemingly every
review, " This amp, like all modern amps, is perfect and has no sound of it's
own." It wasn't true then (most amps were tubed and the few that were
transistorized had that early "transistor sound"), but it is true now - even
modern tube amps.

[August Karlstrom]

On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
> I'll tell you another little secret -
> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences.
> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than
> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure,
> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.

That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.

http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier

http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32


August

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
>> I'll tell you another little secret -
>> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
>> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
>> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences.
>> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than
>> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
>> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure,
>> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.
>
> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the
> same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal
> speakers?
>

Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. Note
that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ...
and it was similarly essentially perfect.

All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.

Doug McDonald

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 14, 12:23=A0pm, Doug McDonald > wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
>
> > On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
> >> I'll tell you another little secret -
> >> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discu=
ss
> >> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these =
days
> >> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real diffe=
rences.
> >> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more ali=
ke than
> >> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend mo=
re are
> >> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to b=
e sure,
> >> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.
>
> > That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316B=
EE will sound practically the
> > same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening =
levels driving normal
> > speakers?
>
> Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. No=
te
> that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ...
> and it was similarly essentially perfect.
>
> All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
> same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
> the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
> rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
> some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.
>
> Doug McDonald

Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:38:54 PM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:

> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?

Put a cloth over them, match their output levels exactly, and try to
tell which is which. Good luck.

> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.

You could, I suppose, but why bother? There's nothing wrong with
having a little overkill in the system.

Unless, that is, you want to take advantage of NAD's sterling
reputation for quality control. ;-)

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/14/2012 4:20 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:23 pm, Doug > wrote:

>> All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
>> same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
>> the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
>> rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
>> some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
> designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
> designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.
>

Ah! It's simple ... the definition of amplifier. An amplifier
amplifies the input signal. That is, it makes it larger, period.

If it wants to do other thing, of course, it most certainly can. There's
nothing wrong with adding "features" to an amplifier if someone wishes,
so long as they are properly speced and labeled.

Devices to do this, however, properly have other names.
Such names are "tone controls" (which that NAD actually has!),
or "equalizers" or "low pass or high pass filters" or "shelving filters"
or in other cases "nonlinear stages" (i.e. single ended triodes with no feedback).

Doug McDonald

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:38:54 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article >):

> On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
>> I'll tell you another little secret -
>> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
>> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
>> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real
>> differences.
>> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike
>> than
>> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
>> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be
>> sure,
>> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.
>
> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>
>
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrated-

> Amplifier
>
>
http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32

>
>
> August
>

Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference
between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power
output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After
all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts.

I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use the
NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will
probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in a
DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's,
the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is.

As to "downgrading" your Creek, it's an amp I'm not familiar with, so I
cannot say. I do know that Creek is a British company known for modest
powered amps, but I dare say that if your Creek is a recent solid-state
amplifier (less than 20-years old) that it sounds every bit as good within
its comfort zone as does a new NAD C 316 BEE.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:20:29 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 14, 12:23=A0pm, Doug McDonald > wrote:
>> On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> I'll tell you another little secret -
>>>> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss
>>>> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days
>>>> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences.
>>>> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than
>>>> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are
>>>> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure,
>>>> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.
>>
>>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE
>>> will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550
>>> at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>>
>> Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. Note
>> that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ...
>> and it was similarly essentially perfect.
>>
>> All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
>> same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
>> the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
>> rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
>> some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
> designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
> designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.
>

Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi
amplifiers do sound the same. Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
straight wire with gain". With modern solid state design, this is not
too difficult a goal to achieve. The differences, when they occur, are
usually down to design decisions made with regard to final selling
price. The circuit topologies that yield theoretically "transparent"
amplifiers are well known by all designers and are neither expensive
nor exotic to execute.

Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one
sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics
aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open
the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power
transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a
couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network
feeding the circuit boards for both channels. Pry open the $2400 amp,
and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much
larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the
single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will
have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate
bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are usually
much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400
amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade
caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage
rails.

Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening
levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT.
However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range
material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the
bigger, stiffer power supply will likely sound better.

*Actually, one of the problems with high-end audio equipment is that
one cannot put "cosmetics" aside. Take two examples of the same
electronics. Put one package in a stamped steel "U-tub" chassis with a
simple silk-screened plastic or steel front panel with plastic knobs,
and you could, perhaps, sell that amplifier for $600 . Put the other,
identical, electronics package in an enclosure machined from a single
billet of aluminum with a fancy three-quarter-inch thick engraved
front panel with machined aluminum knobs and that amp could easily
sell for $2400 or even more. I need not tell you that irrespective of
the package, the two amps will sound identical. That's not to say that
he who buys the $2400 version has been cheated. Some people just like
to have nice things, and are willing to pay extra to have them.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 14, 7:58=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:20:29 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:23=3DA0pm, Doug McDonald > wrote:
> >> On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
>
> >>> On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
> >>>> I'll tell you another little secret -
> >>>> it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to dis=
cuss
> >>>> (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent thes=
e days
> >>>> that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real dif=
ferences.
> >>>> At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more a=
like than
> >>>> they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend =
more are
> >>>> more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to=
be sure,
> >>>> but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening condition=
s.
>
> >>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 31=
6BEE
> >>> will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CT=
H-8550
> >>> at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>
> >> Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes.=
Note
> >> that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ...
> >> and it was similarly essentially perfect.
>
> >> All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
> >> same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
> >> the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
> >> rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
> >> some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.
>
> >> Doug McDonald
>
> > Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
> > designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
> > designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> > add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.
>
> Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi
> amplifiers do sound the same.

there is more int he world of amplifiers than just modern SS. Even so
I'm not so sure this is entirely accurate.



> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
> straight wire with gain".


I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 14, 7:53=A0pm, Doug McDonald > wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 4:20 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:23 pm, Doug > =A0wrote:
> >> All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
> >> same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
> >> the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
> >> rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
> >> some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.
>
> >> Doug McDonald
>
> > Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
> > designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
> > designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> > add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.
>
> Ah! It's simple ... the definition of amplifier. An amplifier
> amplifies the input signal. That is, it makes it larger, period.

I didn't ask you what the defentiion f an amplifier is. I asked you
where you got it? Who makes the rules? It was a rhetoritcal question.
Ironically no amplifier actually does what you say an amplifier does
so by your own defenition there are no amplifiers in this world. The
bottom line is these semantic arguments are exercises in logical
fallacies.
>
> If it wants to do other thing, of course, it most certainly can. There's
> nothing wrong with adding "features" to an amplifier if someone wishes,
> so long as they are properly speced and labeled.
>
> Devices to do this, however, properly have other names.
> Such names are "tone controls" (which that NAD actually has!),
> or "equalizers" or "low pass or high pass filters" or "shelving filters"
> or in other cases "nonlinear stages" (i.e. single ended triodes with no f=
eedback).
>
> Doug McDonald

Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether
you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
prejudices.

[August Karlstrom]

On 2012-03-15 03:54, Audio Empire wrote:
> Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference
> between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power
> output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After
> all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts.

Indeed, but does that have any significance if you live in an apartment,
have neighbours to think about and never play really loud. I guess not.

> I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use the
> NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will
> probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in a
> DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's,
> the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is.

I see nothing spectacular with the Magneplanar's 4 Ohm impedance and 86
dB sensitivity in itself. I have had a pair of tiny Dali Royal Menuet
with the same impedance and sensivity and I used them with an old
integrated 25 W Sansui amplifier without any clipping issues.

> As to "downgrading" your Creek, it's an amp I'm not familiar with, so I
> cannot say. I do know that Creek is a British company known for modest
> powered amps, but I dare say that if your Creek is a recent solid-state
> amplifier (less than 20-years old) that it sounds every bit as good within
> its comfort zone as does a new NAD C 316 BEE.

I may do a blind test to verify this.


August

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>
> I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.

There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
ideal amplifier is. The high-end industry may well understand
something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. The
high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.

The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. See here for a
definition:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/Lectures/AmpLec05.html

If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
different, fine. But Mr. Empire is correct.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one
> sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics
> aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open
> the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power
> transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a
> couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network
> feeding the circuit boards for both channels.

Sounds like a Behringer A500.

> Pry open the $2400 amp,
> and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much
> larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the
> single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will
> have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate
> bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are usually
> much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400
> amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade
> caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage
> rails.

Sounds like the Pass-designed 90 pound monster that I owned for a few months
a few years back. I listened to it, and I put it on the test bench.

But, you left out the 24 high current output devices as compared to 4.

> Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening
> levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT.

Exactly.

This was also true with speakers that pushed the limits - went below their
rated 4 ohms at some frequencies, in-band.

This was also true as long as we kept both amplifiers out of clipping, which
the cheaper amp did a nice job of, as long as you used it within its
ratings. So high power operation wasn't a problem for it.

> However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range
> material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the
> bigger, stiffer power supply will likely sound better.

It turned out that the monster was a 120 wpc power amp at 1 KHz and 8 ohm
loads. But it was more like a 500+ wpc amp with really low impedances (e.g.
2 ohms) and low frequencies (e.g. 20 Hz). I don't know exactly how far it
went, because I only had a 20 amp circuit to plug it into.

On balance, amplifying unclipped audio while driving even the more extreme
but competently designs speakers out there was not a problem for the smaller
amp. A listening test could be rigged so that it appeared that the monster
amp "walked all over" the smaler one. But, it would be a rigged test, not an
honest one, and not one that could be even remotely considered to be
reasonable or representative.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
>> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
>> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>>
>>
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrated-
>
>> Amplifier
>>
>>
> http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32
>
>>
>>
>> August
>>
>
> Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference
> between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their
> power
> output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225.
> After
> all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts.

So, this is not a fair comparison.

BTW I took a look at the Dartzeel, and at $18,000 it is a pale shadow of the
Pass-designed monster amp that I mentioned in the other post. For openers,
it weighs about 1/3 less, and appears to have only about 1/4 as many output
devices, despite being rated at 25% more power. Furthermore, the output
devices in the Dartzeel are plastic-tab one-screw mounted devices, not a
true all-metal TO-3 two-screw mounted output devices, such as used in the
monster I had.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

>
> Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
> you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
> colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether
> you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
> euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
> found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
> free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
> prejudices.
>

Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphonic
colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built using
external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some
portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just as
such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no
longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the
standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook,
increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking away
anything from the original signal.

IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations are
distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much as
possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly low
levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and
without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep modern
amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I have
been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be SOME
differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under normal
listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DBT.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

>
>> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
>> straight wire with gain".
>
>
> I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>

No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION. The function of an amplifier is to
increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and taking
nothing away.

Remember, amplifiers amplify more than just audio signals. Do you want the
amplifiers in an MRI machine to introduce distortion and perhaps cause a
diagnostician to miss a patient's tumor? Do you want an airliner's radar
amplifier to be non-linear and make an oncoming plane seem further away than
it really is? Do you want the video amp in your TV monitor to display a
distorted picture? Of course not. You want all of these amplifiers to do what
amplifiers are supposed to do. Increase the amplitude of the signals fed to
them without adding or taking away anything.

The fact that you LIKE certain types of audio distortion is irrelevant to the
definition of an amplifier. You are free to buy all the purposely non-linear
amplifiers you want. But that doesn't change the definition of an amplifier
in any way shape or form.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:53:00 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:38:54 PM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:
>
>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
>> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
>> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>
> Put a cloth over them, match their output levels exactly, and try to
> tell which is which. Good luck.

Exactly! The good Nabob33 seems to be confusing price with function.
>
>> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>
> You could, I suppose, but why bother? There's nothing wrong with
> having a little overkill in the system.

There is likely nothing that the Creek does that either the Dartzeel or NAD
will do better. The Dartzeel will certainly give him more speaker choices
(because of it's power) and certainly will look more impressive on his
equipment shelf and will likely increase his sense of pride of ownership
(since it costs as much as a small car), but other than that, I doubt very
seriously if, like you say, stripped of visual and expectational cues, he
could tell the difference in a properly set-up listening test.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:55:11 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article >):

> On 2012-03-15 03:54, Audio Empire wrote:
>> Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference
>> between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power
>> output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After
>> all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts.
>
> Indeed, but does that have any significance if you live in an apartment,
> have neighbours to think about and never play really loud. I guess not.
>
>> I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use
>> the
>> NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will
>> probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in
>> a
>> DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's,
>> the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is.
>
> I see nothing spectacular with the Magneplanar's 4 Ohm impedance and 86
> dB sensitivity in itself. I have had a pair of tiny Dali Royal Menuet
> with the same impedance and sensivity and I used them with an old
> integrated 25 W Sansui amplifier without any clipping issues.

Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the
whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned,
and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly
bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal
listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will
possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure.

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

[Robert Peirce]

In article >, Scott >
wrote:

> There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.

I guess whether that is wrong or not depends on what you are after.
Most people, I believe, would prefer everything from the source to the
ear to be as transparent as possible. The only reason I can think of to
use the amp you describe is to offset an opposite coloration in another
component. However, I suspect that would be impossible to get right.

I heard the OP saying that all amps that are designed to be transparent,
which is what I mean by well designed, will sound the same in their
comfort zone.

I have felt that way for years, but I am more interested in the music
than the final little bit of detail in the sound. From my point of
view, the speakers are still the weak point and that is compounded by
the room. However, modern DSP techniques are even solving that problem.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:07:40 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 14, 7:58=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

>> Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi
>> amplifiers do sound the same. Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
>> straight wire with gain". With modern solid state design, this is not
>> too difficult a goal to achieve. The differences, when they occur, are
>> usually down to design decisions made with regard to final selling
>> price. The circuit topologies that yield theoretically "transparent"
>> amplifiers are well known by all designers and are neither expensive
>> nor exotic to execute.
>>
>> Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one
>> sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics
>> aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open
>> the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power
>> transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a
>> couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network
>> feeding the circuit boards for both channels. Pry open the $2400 amp,
>> and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much
>> larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the
>> single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will
>> have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate
>> bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are =A0usually
>> much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400
>> amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade
>> caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage
>> rails.
>>
>> Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening
>> levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT.
>> However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range
>> material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the
>> bigger, stiffer =A0power supply will likely sound better.
>
> All this exercise demonstrates is that rated power output into a
> single
> load spec is insufficient to define an amplifiers performance
> capability.
>
> For example, digging further into these amps performance
> characteristics
> one would likely find the well designed amp can deliver 300 watts into
> a 4 ohm load
> while the lesser amp will probably not.
> Anyone who looks no further than a single power rating spec into an
> undefined load
> for amplifier performance and is surprised by differences is simply
> not doing their homework.

Congratulations! You have managed to miss the point entirely - which
was that modern solid-state amps differ only in things like power
supply design and superficial circuit topology and the degree of fancy
case-work. otherwise, class AB amps are all pretty similar and under
normal listening conditions are all pretty much transparent -
regardless of cost. You have to stress most amps in some way before
any real differences make themselves known.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:08:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
>>> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
>>> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>>> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrate
>>> d-Amplifier
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=
>>> 32
>>
>> Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference
>> between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their
>> power
>> output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225.
>> After
>> all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts.
>
> So, this is not a fair comparison.
>
> BTW I took a look at the Dartzeel, and at $18,000 it is a pale shadow of the
> Pass-designed monster amp that I mentioned in the other post. For openers,
> it weighs about 1/3 less, and appears to have only about 1/4 as many output
> devices, despite being rated at 25% more power. Furthermore, the output
> devices in the Dartzeel are plastic-tab one-screw mounted devices, not a
> true all-metal TO-3 two-screw mounted output devices, such as used in the
> monster I had.
>

Are you trying to say that the Dartzeel is likely overpriced for what it is?
If so, I'll agree. Lots of modern high-end equipment is.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
August Karlstrom > wrote:

> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrated-
> Amplifier
>
> http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32
>
>
> August

For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna
Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out.

There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle
nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the
music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems
are pretty much universally wonderful.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >, Scott >
wrote:

> Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
> you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
> colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether
> you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
> euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
> found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
> free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
> prejudices.

Well, then, you are stuck. Some people thought the original edison
recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with
something better. Then, everybody could hear the difference. Today it
is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an
amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie,
euphonic colorations.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 15, 6:31=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>
> > I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> > Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>
> There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
> ideal amplifier is. =A0The high-end industry may well understand
> something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =A0The
> high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.
>
> The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
> it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =A0See here for a
> definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/Lec=
tures/A...
>
> If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
> different, fine. =A0But Mr. Empire is correct.
>

If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently
personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal
amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to
increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the
most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of
source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who
share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with
their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But
they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals.
Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are
marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers.
You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition
of an amplifier.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 15, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> > Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
> > you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
> > colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether
> > you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
> > euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
> > found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
> > free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
> > prejudices.
>
> Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphon=
ic
> colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built u=
sing
> external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some
> portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just a=
s
> such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no
> longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the
> standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook,
> increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking =
away
> anything from the original signal.
>
> IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations a=
re
> distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much a=
s
> possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly =
low
> levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and
> without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep mod=
ern
> amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I h=
ave
> been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be S=
OME
> differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under norm=
al
> listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DB=
T.

Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not
ideal. We are just going round and round. If distortion makes
something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like
than it is better by my ideals. Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy
serves no purpose in audio. Accuracy's only value is in so far as it
serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces. If euphonic
colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and
my ideal. If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for
the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal
you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a
personal choice and one I can't relate to.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 15, 4:10=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> >> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
> >> straight wire with gain".
>
> > I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> > Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>
> No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION.
> The function of an amplifier is to
> increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and tak=
ing
> nothing away.

In your opinion. In my opinion the function of an amplifier is to
drive the speakers using the signal it is fed in the most
aesthetically pleasing way with the widest variety of source material.
Fortunately for me there are talented designers of amplifiers who
share my ideals and design their products to serve my ideals. In the
end, the function of any playback system is to deliver the best
aesthetic experience of playback as is possible for the source
material that is oing to be played.



>
> Remember, amplifiers =A0amplify more than just audio signals. Do you want=
the
> amplifiers in an MRI machine to introduce distortion and perhaps cause a
> diagnostician to miss a patient's tumor?


This is about audio which is about an aesthetic experience. comparing
audio to MRI machines is silly. If you want to make any meaningful
analogies they will have to be with other things that are judged by
their aesthetic value. We can make an analgy with photography. And
yes, unless I am doing phorensec work I want my images to be
aesthetically pleasing even if they are less accurate as a result. By
the rules you guys are trying to set here a basic glamour lens would
not be considered a lens. But they are in fact lenses.


>=A0Do you want an airliner's radar
> amplifier to be non-linear and make an oncoming plane seem further away t=
han
> it really is?

Again there is no relationship in youyr analogy since audio is about
aesthetics and airplane radar is not.


> Do you want the video amp in your TV monitor to display a
> distorted picture? Of course not.

Actually if you have ever seen the raw footage from most of the state
of the art digital cameras these days you would understand that a
great deal of "distortion" is added in post to make the final product
aesthetically pleasing. So yes, I do want the picture as it is
captured in most digital cameras to be "distorted" and I would be
willing to bet you would too if you saw the raw signal played through
a pro monitor side by side with the processed (distorted) signal.


> You want all of these amplifiers to do what
> amplifiers are supposed to do. Increase the amplitude of the signals fed =
to
> them without adding or taking away anything.

In every case where there is no aesthetic involved yes. In the cases
where there is an aesthetic involved no.

>
> The fact that you LIKE certain types of audio distortion is irrelevant to=
the
> definition of an amplifier. You are free to buy all the purposely non-lin=
ear
> amplifiers you want. But that doesn't change the definition of an amplifi=
er
> in any way shape or form.

Neither does anyone's preference for more accurate amplifiers. The
amplifiers I like that add euphonic distortions are in fact
amplifiers. You can't redefine them out of existance. They are real, I
have one, It works and it sounds terrific. And it is an amplifier.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 15, 4:12=A0pm, Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
> > add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.
>
> I guess whether that is wrong or not depends on what you are after.

THANK YOU! You are correct. It does depend on that.


> Most people, I believe, would prefer everything from the source to the
> ear to be as transparent as possible.

1. Unless you have done a careful survey that really properly samples
"most people" you really don't get to speak for them.
2. I don't care what "most people" want. I do not adjust my taste, my
preferences, or my goals by what I think the masses want.


>=A0The only reason I can think of to
> use the amp you describe is to offset an opposite coloration in another
> component. =A0However, I suspect that would be impossible to get right.

I assure it is quite possible to get a preferable sound from a
euphonically colored amp. I get that from my amp. Doesn't matter how
you word it. It does actually work.


>
> I heard the OP saying that all amps that are designed to be transparent,
> which is what I mean by well designed, will sound the same in their
> comfort zone.

I would agree that all amps that are audibly transparent would all
sound the same within their comfort zone. As John atkinson once said,
all amps sound the same except the ones that don't.


>
> I have felt that way for years, but I am more interested in the music
> than the final little bit of detail in the sound. =A0From my point of
> view, the speakers are still the weak point and that is compounded by
> the room. =A0However, modern DSP techniques are even solving that problem=
..

I'll take improved sound from any point in the audio chain. If it is
better it is better doesn't matter why.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the
> whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned,
> and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly
> bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal
> listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will
> possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure.

I doubt the Maggies are much different from Apogee speakers in this
regard, and I destroyed a relatively low powered amp on mine. I use two
Classe Audio 100wpc into 8 ohms stereo amps to drive my Apogees, one
channel for the bass panel and one for the mid and treble ribbons. They
seem to be able to handle pretty much any material.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >, Scott >
wrote:

> On Mar 15, 4:10*pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote
> > (in article >):
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
> > >> straight wire with gain".
> >
> > > I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> > > Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
> >
> > No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION.
> > The function of an amplifier is to
> > increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and
> > taking
> > nothing away.
>
> In your opinion. In my opinion the function of an amplifier is to
> drive the speakers using the signal it is fed in the most
> aesthetically pleasing way with the widest variety of source material.
> Fortunately for me there are talented designers of amplifiers who
> share my ideals and design their products to serve my ideals. In the
> end, the function of any playback system is to deliver the best
> aesthetic experience of playback as is possible for the source
> material that is oing to be played.

You are confusing feelings with engineering. An engineer really is
trying to design a straight wire with gain. That may or may not appeal
to how you feel about the sound. Additionally, the colorations you like
may not be coming from the amp, alone. Most systems have, at least, a
source, pre-amp, amp, speakers and room. Each component can add a
certain amount of coloration. The amp you like in your setup might not
sound as good in another whereas a completely neutral amp should.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
> > you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
> > colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether
> > you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
> > euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
> > found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
> > free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
> > prejudices.
>
> Well, then, you are stuck. =A0Some people thought the original edison
> recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with
> something better. =A0Then, everybody could hear the difference. =A0Today =
it
> is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an
> amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie,
> euphonic colorations.

so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never
auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations
of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who
can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of
accuracy are the ones who are stuck.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 6:31?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Scott > wrote:
>> > On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> >> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>>
>> > I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
>> > Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>>
>> There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
>> ideal amplifier is. ?The high-end industry may well understand
>> something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. ?The
>> high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.
>>
>> The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
>> it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. ?See here for a
>> definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/Lectures/A...
>>
>> If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
>> different, fine. ?But Mr. Empire is correct.
>
> If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently
> personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal
> amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to
> increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the
> most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of
> source material. Those are both *personal* ideals.

You're not really addressing my point. The ideal amplifier is a well-
understood thing. It's discussed very early in every EE course.
There is no dispute about ideal amplifiers in EE. It's not a matter
of anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a well-defined notion in
engineering.

A similar notion is the ideal beam, which is the one with the least
cross-sectional area (and hence requiring the least material) needed
to achieve a given section modulus. [1] Would you stand up and object
in class, saying "that's not *my* ideal beam! I like them bigger."
Maybe you would. But you'd be wrong.

> There are some who share your ideals there are some who share
> mine. There are others with their own ideals that are completely
> different than either of us.

It is possible to be wrong about this. This isn't like preferring
Mahler to Beethoven.

> But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and
> goals. Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are
> amplifiers. They are marketed as such and used as such. That's
> becasue they are amplifiers. You can't wish them out of existance
> by trying to alter the defenition of an amplifier.

I'm not. I'm trying to explain the ideal amplifier to you.

Andrew.

[1] Wikipedia

[jwvm]

On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:02:48 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce > wrote:

<snip>=20

> so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never
> auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations
> of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who
> can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of
> accuracy are the ones who are stuck.

You are free to use whatever amplifier you want and with whatever non-ideal=
properties that you think are good. However, such an amplifier fails to me=
asure up when compared to the technical definition of an ideal amplifer. Wh=
ether or not you find that such an amplifier meets your needs, you need to =
understand the technical definition of perfection.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the
> whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned,
> and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly
> bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal
> listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will
> possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure.

Given that $79 receivers include fairly competent 100 wpc power amps, I
don't really see much relevance to 40 watt amps.

The last time I played with Large Magneplanars, the power amp at hand was a
fairly inexpensive Hafler DH 220, and it seemed to be fully capable of
blowing the speaker's fuses without excessive clipping.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 15, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):

>
> Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not
> ideal.

I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier. I.E. one that is
"perfect". That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that
alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond my
interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the
question. So don't kill the messenger.


We are just going round and round. If distortion makes
> something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like
> than it is better by my ideals.

Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifier.
Like I said in another post, amplifiers increase the "size" of a signal. Some
amplify audio, some amplify video, some amplify radar signals, some amplify
medical monitoring signals. In all of these (except, apparently, audio) it is
beneficial that the amplifier add nothing ro take nothing away from the
signal being amplified.

> Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy
> serves no purpose in audio.

Except to present the listener with a reasonable facsimile of the recording,
you're right.


> Accuracy's only value is in so far as it
> serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces.


Many happen to think that distortion detracts from the performance.

> If euphonic
> colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and
> my ideal.

That's your privilege. I don't see where you get the idea that anyone is
arguing with your privilege to do what you want with your own audio system.
The term "ideal amplifier" is a technical ideal, not an aesthetic one.

> If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for
> the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal
> you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a
> personal choice and one I can't relate to.

It's a technical description. It's based on the need by most of the world for
amplifiers that are transparent to the signals they amplify. What you are
doing is akin to arguing with the dictionary because your personal definition
of a word differs substantially from the dictionary's. Not only would your
private definition be irrelevant, but nobody cares how an individual,
personally, defines anything.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:02:48 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 16, 2:43=A0am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
>> In article >, Scott >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
>>> you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
>>> colorations I get from my amplifier =A0(which is an amplifier whether
>>> you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
>>> euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
>>> found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
>>> free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
>>> prejudices.
>>
>> Well, then, you are stuck. =A0Some people thought the original edison
>> recorder was as good as it could get until somebody came up with
>> something better. =A0Then, everybody could hear the difference. =A0Today =
> it
>> is getting almost impossible to hear the difference EXCEPT from an
>> amplifier that is purposely designed to a non-standard spec; ie,
>> euphonic colorations.
>
> so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never
> auditioned a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations
> of the amp I already have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who
> can't get past the arbitrary choice of accuracy for the sake of
> accuracy are the ones who are stuck.
>

The term High-Fidelity means a high degree of faithfulness to the original
performance. Ideally (there's that word again), that would require that every
component from the microphone at the performance through the speaker in your
listening room accurately transfer the EXACT sound of the original
performance to some type of portable media and from there, EXACTLY reproduce
it in one's living room. It's an impossible goal, to be sure. One only has to
listen to live music to know how far we are from that goal, regardless of how
good or how much money our audio systems cost. That being said, the
difference between perfect reproduction and what we CAN achieve leaves lots
of room for euphonic colorations that might give one a greater "illusion" of
some aspect of reality to some people than a non euphonically colored
presentation would do. But none of that alters the avowed GOAL of
high-Fidelity to present an accurate reproduction of the original event and
for that, all components must be TRANSPARENT to the original performance,
including any and all amplifying stages from the microphone preamp, and or
mixer to the analog output stage of the source component(s) to the stereo
system's preamp (including phono) through to the power amplifier powering the
speakers.

Whatever. The reality these days is that the audio industry, to a greater or
lesser degree seems to have converged upon the idea of making amplifiers as
transparent as possible. That looks to be the current fashion. I used to love
tube amps and the rich velvety sound they produced. But as my other
components (like CD players, record decks, speakers, etc) became more and
more transparent, I started to notice that Solid State amps that I used to
turn my nose up at gave a sound that was MUCH closer to reality than my much
loved VTL 140 monoblocks and my highly touted Audio Research SP11. I sold
them both last year and bought a squeaky clean Harmon Kardon HK990 Integrated
amp!. With it's built-in 24/192 DAC, and it's room/speaker-equalizing DSP,
I'm now getting performances from my best recordings that are much more
palpably real than anything I got from my expensive, euphonic tube gear. We
live and learn, I guess.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:38 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> Neither does anyone's preference for more accurate amplifiers. The
> amplifiers I like that add euphonic distortions are in fact
> amplifiers. You can't redefine them out of existance. They are real, I
> have one, It works and it sounds terrific. And it is an amplifier.
>

Just not a very accurate one.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 15, 6:31=A0am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Scott > wrote:
>>> On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>>>> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>>
>>> I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
>>> Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>>
>> There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
>> ideal amplifier is. =A0The high-end industry may well understand
>> something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =A0The
>> high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.
>>
>> The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
>> it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =A0See here for a
>> definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/Lec=
> tures/A...
>>
>> If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
>> different, fine. =A0But Mr. Empire is correct.
>>
>
> If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently
> personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal
> amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to
> increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the
> most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of
> source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who
> share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with
> their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But
> they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals.
> Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are
> marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers.
> You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition
> of an amplifier.
>

I agree, but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed
to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL
amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for
preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that's
your taste, have at at!

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:52:59 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the
>> whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned,
>> and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly
>> bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal
>> listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will
>> possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure.
>
> I doubt the Maggies are much different from Apogee speakers in this
> regard, and I destroyed a relatively low powered amp on mine. I use two
> Classe Audio 100wpc into 8 ohms stereo amps to drive my Apogees, one
> channel for the bass panel and one for the mid and treble ribbons. They
> seem to be able to handle pretty much any material.
>

I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to
drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60
watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie
3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The
Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode,
but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each).

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:01 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> August Karlstrom > wrote:
>
>> That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C
>> 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like
>> darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers?
>> Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then.
>>
>> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-316BEE-Stereo-Integrate
>> d-
>> Amplifier
>>
>> http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=
>> 32
>>
>>
>> August
>
> For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna
> Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out.

Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load
that they would "blow out" a tube amp!!

> There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle
> nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the
> music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems
> are pretty much universally wonderful.

I don't think you can make a universal statement like that. I think most
so-called "Golden Ears" just want their audio systems to sound as good as
possible given current technology in order to let more of the music get
through. Although, having said that, I will admit that I have known
audiophiles in my time who were more interested in the sound than in music.
But they were rare.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 16, 2:30=A0pm, jwvm > wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:02:48 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:>On Mar 16, 2:43=
=A0am, Robert >wrote:
>
> >
>
> >so how does that make me stuck? Perhaps you think I have never>auditione=
d a modern SS amp? I have. I prefer the euphonic colorations>of the amp I a=
lready have. So how am I stuck? Seems the folks who>can't get past the arbi=
trary choice of accuracy for the sake of>accuracy are the ones who are stuc=
k.
>
> You are free to use whatever amplifier you want and with whatever non-ide=
al properties that you think are good. However, such an amplifier fails to =
measure up when compared to the technical definition of an ideal amplifer. =
Whether or not you find that such an amplifier meets your needs, you need t=
o understand the technical definition of perfection.

Perhaps you need to understand the nature of the concept of
perfection. Perfection is a goal or an abstract model. Goals are
subjective and determined by human values. human values when it comes
to all things that are aesthetic in nature are personal. You you are
just as free as I am to want whatever properties in an amplifier that
*you* think are good. But you don't get to determine the ideal for the
rest of the world.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 16, 4:35=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > On Mar 15, 4:09=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> > Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not
> > ideal.
>
> I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier.

Sorry no you don't.

> I.E. one that is
> "perfect".

perfect is an abstract that requires a person to subjectively select a
*desired* state of being or goal.

> That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that
> alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond =
my
> interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the
> question. So don't kill the messenger.

I'm not killing the messanger just correcting his eroneous message.


>
> =A0We are just going round and round. If distortion makes
>
> > something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like
> > than it is better by my ideals.
>
> Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifie=
r.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 16, 4:37=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 6:31=3DA0am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
> >> Scott > wrote:
> >>> On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >>>> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>
> >>> I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
> >>> Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>
> >> There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
> >> ideal amplifier is. =3DA0The high-end industry may well understand
> >> something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =3DA0T=
he
> >> high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.
>
> >> The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
> >> it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =3DA0See here f=
or a
> >> definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/=
Lec=3D
> > tures/A...
>
> >> If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
> >> different, fine. =3DA0But Mr. Empire is correct.
>
> > If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently
> > personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal
> > amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to
> > increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the
> > most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of
> > source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who
> > share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with
> > their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But
> > they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals.
> > Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are
> > marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers.
> > You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition
> > of an amplifier.
>
> I agree,

Great, it was a lot of work but I guess I made my point to at least
one person.

> but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed
> to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL
> amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for
> preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that=
's
> your taste, have at at!

Semantic argument. You agreed with what I said about ideals and then
you talk about technically ideal amplifiers in universal terms? You
may as well talk about universally objective favorite colors or
flavors. They are no more reall than any other mythical creature.

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote:

>
> No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any
> real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no
> audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that
> definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) and I will
> concede the point.
>

Try this: http://accessscience.com/content/Voltage-amplifier/735700#S1

Doug McDonald

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 17, 1:16=A0pm, Doug McDonald > wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any
> > real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no
> > audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that
> > definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) =A0and I will
> > concede the point.
>
> Try this:http://accessscience.com/content/Voltage-amplifier/735700#S1
>
It was a pretty good shot only that it missed on both criteria. 1.
That it needs to be an actual real dictionary. 2. That it has to
define the specific term "ideal amplifier."

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 16, 11:03=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 6:31?am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
> >> Scott > wrote:
> >> > On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >>>>Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>
> >>>I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*>>>Ta=
ste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>
> >>There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an>>id=
eal amplifier is. ?The high-endindustry may well understand>>something diff=
erent, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. ?The>>high-endindustry ab=
uses all manner of well-understood terms.
>
> >>The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:>>it=
's something you would be likely to learninEE 101. ?See here for a>>definit=
ion:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/Lectures/A..=
..
>
> >>If youinstead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something>>dif=
ferent, fine. ?But Mr. Empire is correct.
>
> >If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals areinherently>persona=
l then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal>amplifier is one tha=
t does not audibly alter theinput other than to>increase the amplitude. My =
ideal amplifer is the one that nets the>most life like and pleasing resulti=
nmy system with a wide variety of>source material. Those are both *personal=
* ideals.
>
> You're not really addressing my point.


You're not addressing my point that ideals are inherently personal in
nature.


>=A0The ideal amplifier is a well-understood thing. =A0It's discussed very =
earlyinevery EE course.There is no dispute about ideal amplifiersinEE.


One small bubble does not represent the real world in it's entirety.


> =A0It's not a matterof anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a well-=
defined notion in engineering


Sorry but the opinions of a small subset of people in the world of
audio do not get to redefine basic understood terms. Aplifiers with
euphonic colorations are still amplifiers and ideals are not set for
the world at large by some click.


> A similar notion is the ideal beam, which is the one with the leastcross-=
sectional area (and hence requiring the least material) needed
> to achieve a given section modulus. [1] Would you stand up and objectincl=
ass, saying "that's not *my* ideal beam! =A0I like them bigger."
> Maybe you would. =A0But you'd be wrong.


Yet another bad analogy. Audio quality is judged by aesthetics. With
aesthetic judgments come personal ideals.


>
> >There are some who share your ideals there are some who share>mine. Ther=
e are others with their own ideals that are completely>different than eithe=
r of us.
>
> It is possible to be wrong about this. =A0This isn't like preferring
> Mahler to Beethoven.


actually it is just like that. Both are preferences based on aesthetic
value judgments.


>
> >But they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and>goal=
s. =A0Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are>amplifiers. They are mar=
keted as such and used as such. That's>becasue they are amplifiers. =A0You =
can't wish them out of existance>by trying to alter the defenition of an am=
plifier.
>
> I'm not. =A0I'm trying to explainthe ideal amplifier to you.
>

And you have explained *your* idea of the the ideal amplifier. I do
understand it I just don't accept *your* ideals as universal.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:15:52 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 16, 4:35=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:44:11 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 4:09=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not
>>> ideal.
>>
>> I do get to tell you the definition of an "ideal" amplifier.
>
> Sorry no you don't.
>
>> I.E. one that is
>> "perfect".
>
> perfect is an abstract that requires a person to subjectively select a
> *desired* state of being or goal.
>
>> That you don't want a "perfect" amplifier, and prefer one that
>> alters the signal fed to it is none of my business and definitely beyond =
> my
>> interest. IOW, I don't care what you want. I was merely answering the
>> question. So don't kill the messenger.
>
> I'm not killing the messanger just correcting his eroneous message.

You don't get to make up definitions of technical terms any more than you get
to make up definitions for dictionary words.
>
>
>>
>> =A0We are just going round and round. If distortion makes
>>
>>> something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like
>>> than it is better by my ideals.
>>
>> Your ideals have nothing to do with the definition of an "ideal" amplifie=
> r.
>
> a persons *Ideals* have nothing to do with an *ideal*(fill in the
> blank). OK.....I would hope the failed logic there would be self
> evident


You still fail to understand that the definition of an ideal amplifier IS NOT
MY IDEAL, it's a TECHNICAL TERM that's already defined. It has nothing to do
with taste!

Ideal Amplifier: An amplifier which is perfect in that it adds nothing to and
detracts nothing from the signal that it is amplifying. A straight wire with
gain.

If you can't get this through your skull then the problem is yours, not mine.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:16:38 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/17/2012 2:15 PM, Scott wrote:
>
>>
>> No I am arguing with you. Are you a dictionary? Can you show me any
>> real dictionary that defines an "ideal amplifier" as one with no
>> audible colorations? Show me any real dictionary that offers that
>> definition to that *specific* term (ideal amplifier) and I will
>> concede the point.
>>
>
> Try this: http://accessscience.com/content/Voltage-amplifier/735700#S1
>
> Doug McDonald

Precisely. Apparently no one can make Scott understand that "Ideal
amplifier" is an accepted technical term with a precise meaning. It has
NOTHING whatsoever to do with taste.

Also, While I am not a dictionary, I'm perfectly capable of using and quoting
one, which, apparently, Scott is not.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:16:27 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 16, 4:37=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:41 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 6:31=3DA0am, Andrew Haley >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Scott > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain".
>>
>>>>> I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
>>>>> Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.
>>
>>>> There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an
>>>> ideal amplifier is. =3DA0The high-end industry may well understand
>>>> something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. =3DA0T=
> he
>>>> high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms.
>>
>>>> The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art:
>>>> it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. =3DA0See here f=
> or a
>>>> definition:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En123/=
> Lec=3D
>>> tures/A...
>>
>>>> If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something
>>>> different, fine. =3DA0But Mr. Empire is correct.
>>
>>> If you don't understand the basic fact that ideals are inherently
>>> personal then there is nothing more to talk about. Your ideal
>>> amplifier is one that does not audibly alter the input other than to
>>> increase the amplitude. My ideal amplifer is the one that nets the
>>> most life like and pleasing result in my system with a wide variety of
>>> source material. Those are both *personal* ideals. There are some who
>>> share your ideals there are some who share mine. There are others with
>>> their own ideals that are completely different than either of us. But
>>> they are all personal ideals based on preferences and taste and goals.
>>> Amplifiers that add euphonic colorations are amplifiers. They are
>>> marketed as such and used as such. That's becasue they are amplifiers.
>>> You can't wish them out of existance by trying to alter the defenition
>>> of an amplifier.
>>
>> I agree,
>
> Great, it was a lot of work but I guess I made my point to at least
> one person.
>
>> but in the OP, I wasn't describing some boutique amplifier designed
>> to purposely color the sound. I was describing the TECHNICALLY IDEAL
>> amplifier from an engineering standpoint. No one is attacking you for
>> preferring an amplifier that is purposely "euphonically" colored. If that=
> 's
>> your taste, have at at!
>
> Semantic argument. You agreed with what I said about ideals and then
> you talk about technically ideal amplifiers in universal terms? You
> may as well talk about universally objective favorite colors or
> flavors. They are no more reall than any other mythical creature.
>

I'm going to try one more time. I realize that it's hopeless and I'm talking
to a wall, but for the last time: The term "Ideal amplifier" is a TECHNICAL
TERM with a precise definition. It might not be YOUR ideal amplifier, it
might not be MY ideal amplifier, but it is a real, concrete and defined
technical term. As several, people have told you, the term means an amplifier
which increases the amplitude of the signal fed to it without altering it in
any other way. PERIOD! End of Story!

[jwvm]

On Saturday, March 17, 2012 7:06:32 AM UTC-4, Scott wrote:

<snip>

>=20
> Perhaps you need to understand the nature of the concept of
> perfection. Perfection is a goal or an abstract model. Goals are
> subjective and determined by human values. human values when it comes
> to all things that are aesthetic in nature are personal. You you are
> just as free as I am to want whatever properties in an amplifier that
> *you* think are good. But you don't get to determine the ideal for the
> rest of the world.

The reason that there is so much controversy here is because you are using =
a term that has a distinct engineering meaning that is universally recogni=
zed by those with a technical background. As many have already noted, an id=
eal amplifier is one that introduces no distortion and provides voltage gai=
n or current gain or perhaps both. If you used a term like superb or peerle=
ss to describe your idea of perfection, you could move the discussion on to=
cover new ground. Calling your amplifier ideal simply violates the fundame=
ntal knowledge and understanding of many other posters here.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Mar 15, 4:09 pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for
>>> you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic
>>> colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether
>>> you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those
>>> euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features
>>> found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not
>>> free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and
>>> prejudices.
>> Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphonic
>> colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built using
>> external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some
>> portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just as
>> such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no
>> longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the
>> standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook,
>> increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking away
>> anything from the original signal.
>>
>> IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations are
>> distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much as
>> possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly low
>> levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and
>> without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep modern
>> amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I have
>> been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be SOME
>> differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under normal
>> listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DBT.
>
> Sorry but you do not get to tell me what is ideal and what is not
> ideal.

Sorry, but would you also argue that your ideal "circle" has major and minor
radii differing by a factor 1.2378651?

> We are just going round and round.

Because you won't agree to common definitions. Circle is a circle and amplifier
is an amplifier. Circle is not al ellipse nor oval however pleasing one might
look like and amplifier is not an signal processor nor grpahical corrector
(while one of the later typically contains amplifying circuits).

> If distortion makes
> something sound better, as in more pleasing and /or more life like
> than it is better by my ideals.

Life like is not distorted per definition.

> Accuracy just for the sake of accuracy
> serves no purpose in audio.

Yet it does. It's the basis of High Fidelity. Not the word "Fidelity" not
"illusion".

> Accuracy's only value is in so far as it
> serves the aesthetics of sound the system produces. If euphonic
> colorations better serve the aestheics then that is my preference and
> my ideal. If you prefer accuracy for the sake of accuracy and not for
> the sake of it's actual real world aesthetic value that is an ideal
> you are free to hold. But it is not a universal truth. It is a
> personal choice and one I can't relate to.
>

But what all of that has anything to common definition of an amplifier? No one
prevents you from using any signal "improvers" you want in your audio system.
But they're not ideal amplifiers while they might contain amplifying circuits.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to
> drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60
> watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie
> 3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The
> Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode,
> but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each).

That sounds about right. It has been a really long time, but I seem to
recall Apogee recommended 100wpc for the Divas. I'm sure almost
anything would work at relatively low levels, but you need the extra
capacity when you want to crank them up. My setup is probably overkill
but I would rather have too much than not enough.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> > For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna
> > Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out.
>
> Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load
> that they would "blow out" a tube amp!!

It was solid state. Maybe the 70 is wrong. It has been a while. I
once had Dyna tube amps but not when I owned the Duvas.

> > There are people who have trained themselves to pick up very subtle
> > nuances in the sound, but frankly, I don't think they are in it for the
> > music. For somebody who used to listen to scratch 78s, modern systems
> > are pretty much universally wonderful.
>
> I don't think you can make a universal statement like that. I think most
> so-called "Golden Ears" just want their audio systems to sound as good as
> possible given current technology in order to let more of the music get
> through. Although, having said that, I will admit that I have known
> audiophiles in my time who were more interested in the sound than in music.
> But they were rare.

You are probably correct. That's just my impression from the people I
have met and I haven't met them all, only a very small sub-set.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> I used to own a pair of Apogee Duetto IIs. I didn't find them difficult to
> drive at all. My VTL-140 monoblocks (in the triode mode) produced 60
> watts/channel and it drove the Apogees very well. I also had a pair of Maggie
> 3.6's for a while. They were a lot more power hungry than the Apogees. The
> Maggies never sounded right at high SPLs with the VTLs in the triode mode,
> but they sang at high SPLs in the Ultra-Linear mode (140 Watts each).

That sounds about right. It has been a really long time, but I seem to
recall Apogee recommended 100wpc for the Divas. I'm sure almost
anything would work at relatively low levels, but you need the extra
capacity when you want to crank them up. My setup is probably overkill
but I would rather have too much than not enough.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:57:53 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>>> For most people if it isn't stressed. However, I once connected a Dyna
>>> Stereo 70 to a pair of Apogee speakers, just for fun, and blew it out.
>>
>> Really? I wouldn't have thought that the Apogees were such a difficult load
>> that they would "blow out" a tube amp!!
>
> It was solid state. Maybe the 70 is wrong. It has been a while. I
> once had Dyna tube amps but not when I owned the Duvas.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps a
Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile. Dynaco
had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you
replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering
replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow
instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life, they
changed to a different output transistor and different complementary drivers
and then they didn't self-destruct so often.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 11:03?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>>
>> You're not really addressing my point.
>
> You're not addressing my point that ideals are inherently personal in
> nature.
>
>> The ideal amplifier is a well-understood thing. It's discussed very
>> early in every EE course. There is no dispute about ideal
>> amplifiers in EE.
>
> One small bubble does not represent the real world in it's entirety.

Surely it is not unreasonable to use conventional electronic
engineering terminology when discussing electronic devices, whatever
these devices are used for.

>> It's not a matter of anyone's personal ideals, it's a matter of a
>> well-defined notion in engineering
>
> Sorry but the opinions of a small subset of people in the world of
> audio do not get to redefine basic understood terms.

But that "small subset" is precisely the group of people who
understand how the technology works.

> Amplifiers with euphonic colorations are still amplifiers and ideals
> are not set for the world at large by some click.

This is, I suppose, a philosophical question: is it better to use
engineering terminology as defined by engineers or by the marketing
departments of high-end companies? And, even if you don't use
conventional engineering terminology, is it reasonable to for you to
object to those who do?

> And you have explained *your* idea of the the ideal amplifier. I do
> understand it I just don't accept *your* ideals as universal.

Again, it's not *my* ideal.

Andrew.

[Jason[_14_]]

On 20 Mar 2012 23:12:55 GMT "Audio Empire" >
wrote in article >

>
> OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps a
> Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile. Dynaco
> had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you
> replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering
> replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow
> instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life, they
> changed to a different output transistor and different complementary drivers
> and then they didn't self-destruct so often.
>
I still have a ST120 that I built in the early 70's. I turn it on every
year or so in an attempt to save the electrolytic caps. It still works
just fine though it hasn't been my primary amp for decades. I've used it
for sound reinforcement for years at our village's Halloween haunted
house, where it's called upon to run nearly flat-out for hours on end
into parallel'd (nominally) 8-ohm speakers...sometimes 3 in parallel!

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:26:10 -0700, Jason wrote
(in article >):

> On 20 Mar 2012 23:12:55 GMT "Audio Empire" >
> wrote in article >
>
>>
>> OK, that makes a lot more sense. Bet it was a Dynaco Stereo 120, or perhaps
>> a
>> Stereo 80. Both were early SS designs and both were extremely fragile.
>> Dynaco
>> had to hand select the output transistors for V sub CE (IIRC). If you
>> replaced blown ones with off-the-shelf 2N3055s, instead of ordering
>> replacements directly from Dyna, more likely than not, they would blow
>> instantly when the power was re-applied. Later in the Stereo 120's life,
>> they
>> changed to a different output transistor and different complementary
>> drivers
>> and then they didn't self-destruct so often.
>>
> I still have a ST120 that I built in the early 70's. I turn it on every
> year or so in an attempt to save the electrolytic caps. It still works
> just fine though it hasn't been my primary amp for decades. I've used it
> for sound reinforcement for years at our village's Halloween haunted
> house, where it's called upon to run nearly flat-out for hours on end
> into parallel'd (nominally) 8-ohm speakers...sometimes 3 in parallel!
>

Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120.
it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in
the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and
barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was
why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion. After they went to a
more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more into
class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day) and
was pretty bullet-proof as you point out.

I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set of
output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from Dynaco
at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco A-50
speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they
should have been it.

When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K
sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation. It
wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to not
have crossover distortion.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
>
> Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120.
> it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors in
> the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and
> barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was
> why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
> exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion.

To be technically accurate, Class B operation is not a region
or continuum, it is a very specific bias point where the
conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees. Pushing it further
than that is not "so far into class B", it's into class
C operation.

The definitions of biasing classes in push-pull
amplifiers goes as follows:

Class A
Conduction angle is 360 deg, all devices conduct
continuously

Class AB
Conduction angle less than 360 deg, but greater
than 180 degrees, some portion of the signal range
is handled by both devices, while outside that range
either one side or the other handles the signal

Class B
Conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees: only one
side or the other is handling the signal, with the
transition from one side to the other occuring at
the zero crossing.

Class C
Conduction angle is less than 180 degrees: a portion
of the signal is handled by one device or the other,
while some portion of the signal centerd around the
zero crossing is not handled at all.

Now all that being said, while it may seem that any class A,
AB or (theoretically perfect) class B amplifier should be
devoid of crossover distortion, in practice this is simply
not the case. One of the assumptions is that the devices
work either as perfectly linear through their operating range,
or as perfect square-law devices, with no turn-on lag or
hysteresis of any sort, of which there is no such device in
practice. I have seen heavily over-biased tube amplifiers
(almost in class A) exhibiting clear evidence of crossover
(more accurately, zero-crossing) anomolies, and I have seen
very well-behaved lightly biased (almost at class B) with
much less.

The early Dyna 120's had all sort of problems, and biasing
was merely tone of the more obvious.

Now, as an aside, one of the simplest ways of dramatically
reducing the audible consequences of crossover distortion was
to simply shift the operating point of the amplifier up or down
so that the crossover did not occur at 0 volts, but rather
at some other point, maybe like a volt or two. The result was
that at low signal levels, there was no crossover, since the
signal never crosses the boundary. When the signal level gets
high enough to hit the crossover non-linearity, the signal,
well, almost by definition, is high enough that the amount
of distortion products produced by the crossover distortion
is a very small portion of the total signal.

It's a technique that has been used for many decades in other
applications where low-level linearity is very important. It
just seemed to never have occurred to anyone in the audio
business, and, when it has been suggested to more than one
high-end amplifier "designer," they would stumble all over
themselves trying to figre out why it just had to be a bad
idea, without having a clue what they were talking about.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:05:30 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>> Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120.
>> it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors
>> in
>> the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and
>> barely do-able. One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand
>> was
>> why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
>> exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion.
>
> To be technically accurate, Class B operation is not a region
> or continuum, it is a very specific bias point where the
> conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees. Pushing it further
> than that is not "so far into class B", it's into class
> C operation.
>
> The definitions of biasing classes in push-pull
> amplifiers goes as follows:
>
> Class A
> Conduction angle is 360 deg, all devices conduct
> continuously
>
> Class AB
> Conduction angle less than 360 deg, but greater
> than 180 degrees, some portion of the signal range
> is handled by both devices, while outside that range
> either one side or the other handles the signal
>
> Class B
> Conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees: only one
> side or the other is handling the signal, with the
> transition from one side to the other occuring at
> the zero crossing.
>
> Class C
> Conduction angle is less than 180 degrees: a portion
> of the signal is handled by one device or the other,
> while some portion of the signal centerd around the
> zero crossing is not handled at all.
>
> Now all that being said, while it may seem that any class A,
> AB or (theoretically perfect) class B amplifier should be
> devoid of crossover distortion, in practice this is simply
> not the case. One of the assumptions is that the devices
> work either as perfectly linear through their operating range,
> or as perfect square-law devices, with no turn-on lag or
> hysteresis of any sort, of which there is no such device in
> practice. I have seen heavily over-biased tube amplifiers
> (almost in class A) exhibiting clear evidence of crossover
> (more accurately, zero-crossing) anomolies, and I have seen
> very well-behaved lightly biased (almost at class B) with
> much less.
>
> The early Dyna 120's had all sort of problems, and biasing
> was merely tone of the more obvious.
>
> Now, as an aside, one of the simplest ways of dramatically
> reducing the audible consequences of crossover distortion was
> to simply shift the operating point of the amplifier up or down
> so that the crossover did not occur at 0 volts, but rather
> at some other point, maybe like a volt or two. The result was
> that at low signal levels, there was no crossover, since the
> signal never crosses the boundary. When the signal level gets
> high enough to hit the crossover non-linearity, the signal,
> well, almost by definition, is high enough that the amount
> of distortion products produced by the crossover distortion
> is a very small portion of the total signal.
>
> It's a technique that has been used for many decades in other
> applications where low-level linearity is very important. It
> just seemed to never have occurred to anyone in the audio
> business, and, when it has been suggested to more than one
> high-end amplifier "designer," they would stumble all over
> themselves trying to figre out why it just had to be a bad
> idea, without having a clue what they were talking about.
>
>

To be fair, I think that most of us know that. when speaking about "biasing
into class -B" I merely mean biasing to the point where there is no class A
or class A-B operation at any signal level.

And Dyna did, eventually, fix the ST120 and the ST80 so that they no longer
exhibited the crossover notch for which they were so notorious. They also did
eventually go to more robust driver and output transistors and later ST120s
did become very versatile work-horse amps. (I once knew a sound reinforcement
guy who used a stack of them for years. He swore by them). Unfortunately
for Dynaco, the early amps had such a bad reputation, that it soured many an
audiophile on the company's solid-state amplifiers.

Also yesterday, I said that the ST-120 came out in 1967. I was wrong, the amp
was introduced in 1966 and I built mine in late 1967.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Basically, there was nothing wrong with the circuit topology of the ST120.

That's questionable, based on comparison with competitive products.

The amp was atypical in at least 2 ways.

(1) Regulated power supply

(2) Driver transistor bases connected together with bias applied through the
emitters. Normal was emitters connected together and bias applied through
the bases.

Looks to me like someone wanted to avoid the possibility of paying royalties
for using the more common Lin circuit

http://home.comcast.net/~g.e.dunn/ST120/schem1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~g.e.dunn/ST120/schem2.jpg

> it's just that the state of the art of wide-bandwidth silicon transistors
> in
> the late 1960's was such that 60 Watts RMS/channel was asking a lot and
> barely do-able.

Agreed. Price was also an issue. The Dyna 120 was origionally built with
2N3055 outputs, but it didn't become really reliable until it was upgraded
to 2N3772s.

> One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was
> why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
> exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion.

Didn't happen with good Dyna 120s, of which I happen to own one and have
bench tested it. Mine has the later output transistors, but was
factory-built that way.

> After they went to a
> more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more
> into
> class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day)
> and
> was pretty bullet-proof as you point out.

I'd like to find out what the documented differences were for the early
120s.

> I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set
> of
> output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from
> Dynaco
> at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco
> A-50
> speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they
> should have been it.

Agreed.

> When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K
> sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation.
> It
> wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to
> not
> have crossover distortion.

The Citation 12 was a later generation device, which enhanced the Lin
circuit by upgrading to a differential input stage.

Please see figure 5 at
http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.passlabs.com/images/citation.pdf

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:58:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

>> One thing about that Dyna Amp that I never did understand was
>> why the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
>> exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion.
>
> Didn't happen with good Dyna 120s, of which I happen to own one and have
> bench tested it. Mine has the later output transistors, but was
> factory-built that way.

A minor quibble, here. You mean it didn't happen with LATER 120's. It was not
a matter that some examples exhibited crossover distortion and some did not.
Up until about 1971-72, all ST120s exhibited the characteristic. In the
mid-1970's I was acquainted with Bob Orban (founder of Parasound and the
manufacturer of the Orban Optimod FM limiter/compressor/modulator). He said
that he had tested literally dozens of ST120s (including mine) and not found
a one manufactured before about 1972 that didn't have crossover distortion.
>
>> After they went to a
>> more robust set of drivers/output transistors and biased the amps more
>> into
>> class "A-B", the amp sounded OK (by the solid-state standards of the day)
>> and
>> was pretty bullet-proof as you point out.
>
> I'd like to find out what the documented differences were for the early
> 120s.

Seems to me that I posted that info here the last time we had a discussion
about this component. I don't remember where I found it, but there was a list
of parts on some web-page showing what Dyna replaced. Seems to me that the
complete 'mod' consisted of a couple of resistors, capacitors and a couple
of chokes (don't quote me on the chokes, I could be mixing this up with
something else). Obviously, it would be the resistors that would change the
bias point on the output switching...

>> I had an early one that I built from a kit and it would go through a set
>> of
>> output transistors and complementary driver transistors sourced from
>> Dynaco
>> at least twice a year. At the time, the amp was driving a pair of Dynaco
>> A-50
>> speakers - If anything should have been a decent match for the amp, they
>> should have been it.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> When I later replaced the ST120 with a Harmon-Kardon Citation 12, the H-K
>> sounded so much cleaner than the Dyna, that I thought it was a revelation.
>> It
>> wasn't of course, it was just an amp biased far enough into class "A" to
>> not
>> have crossover distortion.
>
> The Citation 12 was a later generation device, which enhanced the Lin
> circuit by upgrading to a differential input stage.

But, IIRC, it still used a pair of complementary drivers and NPN outputs,
like the ST120 (seemed to me that they were still 2N3055s, but I could be
misremembering here, I haven't laid eyes on that amp for 35 years).
>
> Please see figure 5 at
> http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.passlabs.com/images/citation.pdf

Thanks. Yes, I see what they did. Q6 and Q7 have the number 40636 next to
them. Is that an H-K part number? Doesn't sound like any transistor number
with which I'm familiar.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:05:30 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
> (in article >):
>>>the early ones (1967-1971) were biased so far into class "B" that they
>>>exhibited a very apparent crossover notch distortion.
>>
>>To be technically accurate, Class B operation is not a region
>>or continuum, it is a very specific bias point where the
>>conduction angle is exactly 180 degrees. Pushing it further
>>than that is not "so far into class B", it's into class
>>C operation.
>
> To be fair, I think that most of us know that.

I don't know that "most of us know that," and, unless
you've done the survey, I suspect that you don't either.

If past posts in this and other newsgroups over the years
is any indication, then there is in fact, a significant
portion of the high-end audio readership that does NOT
know that. It is to them, as one audience, that my reply
was directed.

Further, your statement "biased so far into class 'B'"
seems to imply the assumption that class B is not a
boundary, but a region. Let's take the same grammar but
in a slightly different context:

"I never did understand was why my friend drove so far
into the border between the USA and Canada that he exhibited
a very apparent 'eh' at the end of each sentence, eh?"

Unless the asumption is the border between the USA and
Canada is a region and not a line, it;s really difficult
to imagine driving "so far into the border." He's either
in the USA, or he's in Canada, or has one set of wheels in
one and the other.

The issue of technical accuracy is important, not to the
"most of us that know," but to the many that don't. I don't
know how many myths and half-truths take on a life of their
own when bystanders to a technical discussion see terminology
bandied about willy-nilly by "most of us that know," with the
assumption that, well, "most of us know."

Actually, in the high-end world, there are those that would
say most forcefully, that "most of us know" that cables make
enormous differences, that "most of us know" that digital
can't possibly capture analog waveforms because of stuff
'missing between the samples," that "most of us know" that the
output of a CD player MUST look like a staircase, that "most
of us know" a whole nunch of things that simply aren't so.

You might assume, reasonably or otherwise, that "most of us
know" something. I, on the other hand, don't think it's
necessarily either a good idea or of service to those, even
if it's but a single person, who aren't "most of us."

And, by the way, which "us" are you talking about?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

>> The Citation 12 was a later generation device, which enhanced the Lin
>> circuit by upgrading to a differential input stage.

> But, IIRC, it still used a pair of complementary drivers and NPN outputs,

Yes, it had a quasi-complementary output stage, just like the *good* Dyna
120s and just about every other SS amp of the day.

Full complementary output transistor sets with enough power handling
capacity to be interesting came in the mid-1970s.

As nice and symmetrical as these devices made schematic diagrams appear,
they provided no audible or reliability benefits.

> like the ST120 (seemed to me that they were still 2N3055s, but I could be
> misremembering here, I haven't laid eyes on that amp for 35 years).

The originional ST-120 schematics showed 2N3055s, but the *good* ST-120s
used the later and beefier 2N3443 devices.

>> Please see figure 5 at
>> http://cygnus.ipal.org/mirror/www.passlabs.com/images/citation.pdf

> Thanks. Yes, I see what they did. Q6 and Q7 have the number 40636 next to
> them. Is that an H-K part number? Doesn't sound like any transistor number
> with which I'm familiar.

40636 looks to me like a RCA part designation. An early member of this
product line was the 40411 AKA "411" which was, no surprise a beefier
2N3055.

http://alltransistors.com/transistor.php?transistor=20869


RCA was an early leader in producing extra-beefy NPN power transistors, but
they did not have a lot to offer in corresponding full complementary pairs.
Motorola took over, with parts like the MJE150xx series.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/48383-citation-12-substitute-transistors.html