[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:12:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
upgrade my CD player.

Upgrade or replace?

If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest
of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
money thrown after bad.

He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
said it sounded a little soft for his taste.

Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides
again!

TASTES, Mr. Kruger.

Taste presumes relevant differences.

Let's say that you met someone who would walk up to a case of bottled water
and carefully inspectes each (identical) bottle, and then pick one claiming
that it tasted better than the rest.

Let's say that someone would only drink a given brand of bottled water in a
certain size?

Most of us would say that someone is acting pretty strange - sort of like
Mr. Monk the detective on TV.

Some people like different things in the way their systems sound.

The key parameter here is the easily disproven idea that all CD players have
a characteristic sound.


One person might prefer
"soft" while another might prefer that their system sound
a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft and
another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one of
them is defective, however.

If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
broken now or started out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
signal that comes out of them.


If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard
DAC is a very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.

Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to
haunt us.

Who said anything about something sounding bad?

Any DAC that fails to be sonically transparent is either broken now or
started out that way.

You might
like the taste of brussels sprouts, and I might not.

That presumes that good DACs sound can possibly sound different from each
other. They can't. The mission of a DAC is to be sonically transparent.

We all know that good vegetables can taste different, even bussels sprouts
from the same plant depending how ripe they are when they are picked.

Completely different thing.






*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

One person might prefer "soft" while another might prefer that their
system
sound a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft
and another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one
of them is defective, however.

If they sound different than at least one has failed to
be sonically transparent. Any CD player that fails to be
sonically transparent is either broken now or started
out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching
for the right one, because there are math-based reasons
why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different
components and varying circuits in both the digital and
analog sections, that it would be unreasonable to suppose
that there would NOT be differences in the analog signal
that comes out of them.

You can suppose what you want, but you're talking to someone who has
actually done the corresponding hands-on homework.

Masters, Ian G 'Do All CD Players Sound the Same?' Stereo review, Jan 1986,
pg 50-57.

So have others:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/pruebasciegas.htm

Pholmann, Ken C. '6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo
Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.

Phollmann, Ken C. 'The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo
Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):


If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
broken now or started out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
signal that comes out of them.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind listening tests for
cables merely confirm what physics tells us MUST be the outcome of such
tests. Therefore both the math and the listening tests back each other up by
finding that that there is no reason why two interconnects or two speaker
cables SHOULD sound any different, and the DBTs show that no differences
exist.

In more complex active electronic components such as amplifiers, preamps,
DACs CD players, phono stages, etc., there is no electronic theory that
predicts how these devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to sound different from one
which has less than 1%, and that is predictable and demonstrable). That's
because there many paths to analog design and different quality and type
components are going to yield different results. For instance, if you build
two identical amplifiers, but one was made with carbon composition resistors
and then other one was built with metal film resistors, the amps should sound
the same - but they won't. The one made with the metal film resistors will be
significantly quieter than the amp made with carbon comp resistors and this
difference will give the amps away in a double-blind test every time.

What DBTs show with amps and other analog devices (such as DACs) is that
while modern units do show differences, they aren't great. In fact, I have
never been party to a DBT of modern amps, preamps of DACs where I couldn't
happily live with any of them, the differences are so trivial that they will
literally fade from memory after just a few minutes with any one of them. The
days when components sounded wildly different are long gone. Even fairly
cheap amps sound neutral enough to not cause most people to object to them on
sonic grounds.

I have a pair of identical Crown IC-150 preamps. One I bought new back in the
late 1970's and one I purchased at an electronics flea market 10 years later.
The flea market Crown I have left stock , but the one I bought new, I have
continually upgraded as op-amp technology has improved. This is kind of an
ongoing experiment to me. I don't actually employ either pre-amp in my stereo
system, but I do connect them up whenever I upgrade my original one. I invite
my audiophile buddies over for an impromptu DBT.

The IC-150 is ideal for this kind of test because it only has a single IC (1
for each channel) in it. The phono stage is discrete and the National
LM-301A used in the original unit was a mini-DIP package that has a single
Op-amp in it. This pinout has been kept by the industry and so every time
there was a breakthrough in op-amp technology, It was a simple matter to
just plug-n-play the latest and the greatest. Since I kept the other IC-150
stock with it's ancient, wheezing, LM301A intact, the differences were easy
to hear. In the late 1980's, National came out with a line of Bipolar/FET
hybrid op-amps. The difference between that op-amp and the original LM301 was
probably the greatest, but even the latest LM49710 MA (which has vanishingly
low distortion and noise) was a big improvement. Anybody who doesn't think
that advances in op-amp technology make a difference between two otherwise
identical components, should hear my two Crowns. The original one sounds
awful. It's strident, dirty, and very unpleasant sounding with a very soft
top end. The modified IC-150 with the LM49710s (which I also put in my DAC)
sounds clean and extended with noticeably more top end and a much cleaner
midrange. It's easy to hear the difference in a DBT. Nobody has ever mistook
the stock unit for the upgraded one.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):


If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
broken now or started out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
signal that comes out of them.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind listening tests for
cables merely confirm what physics tells us MUST be the outcome of such
tests. Therefore both the math and the listening tests back each other up by
finding that that there is no reason why two interconnects or two speaker
cables SHOULD sound any different, and the DBTs show that no differences
exist.

In more complex active electronic components such as amplifiers, preamps,
DACs CD players, phono stages, etc., there is no electronic theory that
predicts how these devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to sound different from one
which has less than 1%, and that is predictable and demonstrable). That's
because there many paths to analog design and different quality and type
components are going to yield different results. For instance, if you build
two identical amplifiers, but one was made with carbon composition resistors
and then other one was built with metal film resistors, the amps should sound
the same - but they won't. The one made with the metal film resistors will be
significantly quieter than the amp made with carbon comp resistors and this
difference will give the amps away in a double-blind test every time.

What DBTs show with amps and other analog devices (such as DACs) is that
while modern units do show differences, they aren't great. In fact, I have
never been party to a DBT of modern amps, preamps of DACs where I couldn't
happily live with any of them, the differences are so trivial that they will
literally fade from memory after just a few minutes with any one of them. The
days when components sounded wildly different are long gone. Even fairly
cheap amps sound neutral enough to not cause most people to object to them on
sonic grounds.

I have a pair of identical Crown IC-150 preamps. One I bought new back in the
late 1970's and one I purchased at an electronics flea market 10 years later.
The flea market Crown I have left stock , but the one I bought new, I have
continually upgraded as op-amp technology has improved. This is kind of an
ongoing experiment to me. I don't actually employ either pre-amp in my stereo
system, but I do connect them up whenever I upgrade my original one. I invite
my audiophile buddies over for an impromptu DBT.

The IC-150 is ideal for this kind of test because it only has a single IC (1
for each channel) in it. The phono stage is discrete and the National
LM-301A used in the original unit was a mini-DIP package that has a single
Op-amp in it. This pinout has been kept by the industry and so every time
there was a breakthrough in op-amp technology, It was a simple matter to
just plug-n-play the latest and the greatest. Since I kept the other IC-150
stock with it's ancient, wheezing, LM301A intact, the differences were easy
to hear. In the late 1980's, National came out with a line of Bipolar/FET
hybrid op-amps. The difference between that op-amp and the original LM301 was
probably the greatest, but even the latest LM49710 MA (which has vanishingly
low distortion and noise) was a big improvement. Anybody who doesn't think
that advances in op-amp technology make a difference between two otherwise
identical components, should hear my two Crowns. The original one sounds
awful. It's strident, dirty, and very unpleasant sounding with a very soft
top end. The modified IC-150 with the LM49710s (which I also put in my DAC)
sounds clean and extended with noticeably more top end and a much cleaner
midrange. It's easy to hear the difference in a DBT. Nobody has ever mistook
the stock unit for the upgraded one.



OK, but your timeline seems to say that by the late '80's these op amps had
improved greatly since the 70's. However, I have owned a mass market
reciever from the mid 90's that I paid about $300 for (not a cheapo amp).
The difference between it and my current tube amp is profound.

True, I have not compared it with a high end SS amp, but I'm sure the high
end amp would sound just as improved over that crap receiver as mine does.

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same!

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

OK, but your timeline seems to say that by the late '80's
these op amps had improved greatly since the 70's.
However, I have owned a mass market reciever from the mid
90's that I paid about $300 for (not a cheapo amp). The
difference between it and my current tube amp is
profound.

Depending on the tube amp, proper bench measurements could probably explain
why.

True, I have not compared it with a high end SS amp, but
I'm sure the high end amp would sound just as improved
over that crap receiver as mine does.

A mid-90s receiver would now be 16 years old and may be defective.

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same!

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good ones
that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither of the
amps you are comparing are good amps.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same!

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good ones
that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither of the
amps you are comparing are good amps.



NOW you change your tune!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner
wrote (in article ):


If they sound different than at least one has failed to
be sonically transparent. Any CD player that fails to
be sonically transparent is either broken now or
started out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching
for the right one, because there are math-based reasons
why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different
components and varying circuits in both the digital and
analog sections, that it would be unreasonable to
suppose that there would NOT be differences in the
analog signal that comes out of them.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind
listening tests for cables merely confirm what physics
tells us MUST be the outcome of such tests. Therefore
both the math and the listening tests back each other up
by finding that that there is no reason why two
interconnects or two speaker cables SHOULD sound any
different, and the DBTs show that no differences exist.

The same thing applies to complex electronics.

In more complex active electronic components such as
amplifiers, preamps, DACs CD players, phono stages, etc.,
there is no electronic theory that predicts how these
devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to
sound different from one which has less than 1%, and that
is predictable and demonstrable).

The reason why there is no *electronic theory* that predicts audibility is
because audibility is not based on electronics.

Audibility is based on the study of human beings and in some cases where
relevant, other mammals.

The study of audibility usually comes under a well-known area of scientific
study called Psychoacoustics. Note that this is hard science and not social
studies. The classic work in this field is Zwicker and Fastl's
"Psychoacoustics, Facts and Models", 1991, 1999. The models of audiblity
described in this work have translated into the development of perceptual
coders.

[bob]

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good=
ones
that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither o=
f the
amps you are comparing are good amps.

NOW you change your tune!

Doesn't look like a change of tune at all. Looks like you need to be
reading more carefully.

The audibility of amps is well understood, to the point that you can
find it explained in college textbooks. Assuming two amps are both
capable of driving the load, and neither exhibits FR anomalies or
other obvious forms of distortion sufficient to be heard (which is
rare to unknown in modern SS designs), they cannot be distinguished by
ear alone. If you've got data demonstrating the contrary, please share
it. And please note, that's *data*.

bob

[VilliamRobat]

Let's say that you met someone who would walk up to a case of bottled water and carefully inspectes each (identical) bottle, and then pick one claiming
that it tasted better than the rest.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same!

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It
is just the good ones that sound the same, and there is
good reason to believe that neither of the amps you are
comparing are good amps.

NOW you change your tune!

Where have I said otherwise?

I admit that there is a sort of a self-defining truism here - which is that
all good amps sound the same (as a straight piece of wire with gain) and
that any amp that fails to do this is by definition, not good amplifier. It
is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

It is also true that the study of classical electronics (i.e., as I learned
it in the 1960s) gives no specific insights into audibility. However an
area of the joint studies of biology and physics oddly (oddly to me since
the Psycho- prefix implies psychology and no social science is actually
involved) known as Psychoacoustics, does.

Modern electronics texts do mention many of the findings of the science of
Psychoacooustics. So in 2010, the field of Electronics as it now it has
solid explanations about how electronics can be imperfect in terms of
theoretical and measured performance, but also be perfect as far as the ear
goes.

Psychacoustics came into its own as a science in the late 1980s. However,
even in the 1960s we heard mention of the word Masking and we were aware of
the findings of Fletcher and Munson. It turns out that due to Masking,
Fletcher and Munson turned out to be very optimistic about the sensitivity
of the human ear. However, even the findings of Fletcher and Munson which
have stood the test of time in their rightful context, show that it should
be fairly easy to build converters and amplfiiers that while measurably
flawed are sonically perfect.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same!

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It
is just the good ones that sound the same, and there is
good reason to believe that neither of the amps you are
comparing are good amps.

NOW you change your tune!

Where have I said otherwise?

I admit that there is a sort of a self-defining truism here - which is that
all good amps sound the same (as a straight piece of wire with gain) and
that any amp that fails to do this is by definition, not good amplifier. It
is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

It is also true that the study of classical electronics (i.e., as I learned
it in the 1960s) gives no specific insights into audibility. However an
area of the joint studies of biology and physics oddly (oddly to me since
the Psycho- prefix implies psychology and no social science is actually
involved) known as Psychoacoustics, does.

Modern electronics texts do mention many of the findings of the science of
Psychoacooustics. So in 2010, the field of Electronics as it now it has
solid explanations about how electronics can be imperfect in terms of
theoretical and measured performance, but also be perfect as far as the ear
goes.

Psychacoustics came into its own as a science in the late 1980s. However,
even in the 1960s we heard mention of the word Masking and we were aware of
the findings of Fletcher and Munson. It turns out that due to Masking,
Fletcher and Munson turned out to be very optimistic about the sensitivity
of the human ear. However, even the findings of Fletcher and Munson which
have stood the test of time in their rightful context, show that it should
be fairly easy to build converters and amplfiiers that while measurably
flawed are sonically perfect.

[RoySon]

It is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

[kevinh]

Earl Geddes has a paper on the use of multiple subwoofers that is at his site. He shows that with 3 subs you can get response similar to 4 as Toole recommends.

http://www.gedlee.com/Papers.htm


The powerpoint on small room acoustics is very good that along with the pdf on subwoofer placement should help the OP.

The bottom line is 3 $400 SW would be better than 1 $1200 SW. This has to do with the acoustics of small rooms.

Arnie makes a good point about electronics and that there is a good understanding of what will sound good and what will not sound good. If you find as design where the distortion components decline in a linear fashion as the volume declines, there are lower levels of high order harmonics than low level harmonics, then the amp will sound good.

Money spent on room acoustics and placing speakers in a room will provide far more ROI than the latest magic cables or expensive amps.

http://www.rpginc.com/residential/index.htm


Since many recordings have problems a good eq for program material will provide a good ROI. See the Burwin Bobcat if you want to want to improve your sound in a meaningful way.

http://www.burwenbobcat.com/BBTB_Home.html

Wish I had the $$ to get one of these