"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not a point
of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further improvement.
Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much in the way of
specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are old news and have been
well documented in previous discussions.
Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for determining at
least the general vicinity of this point ?

I will throw out some criteria, everyone is welcome to disagree with
me.

Signal to Noise ratio: That is fairly easy to determine, for yourself,
by listening to test a CD, with various white noise levels. White
noise of -60 dB begins to be difficult to hear. I find white noise of
-80 db inaudible. 16 bit CD's have a white noise less than -90 dB.

Harmonic and Intermodulation Distortion: If you can find his posts, I
remember John Dunlavy writing that tests showed -90 dB beat levels
were inaudible.

I would say that as a general rule, if the beats created by any
combination of three test tones are -90 dB, than the distortion
created by a music signal is inaudible.

Flatness: +/- 0.5 dB flatness (from 20 Hz to 20 kHz) is the point of
inaudibiliy.

Jitter: Some CD's may have more jitter than cheap CD players can
correct. Work needs to be done to determine the level of audibility
for jitter.

Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
ringing.

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

Loudspeaker Polar Response: No one seems to know the ideal polar
response for a loudspeaker. Since each living room is different, there
may never be an answer to this question.

Bob Stanton

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message


I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not a
point of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further
improvement. Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much
in the way of specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are old
news and have been well documented in previous discussions.

Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for
determining at least the general vicinity of this point ?

AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly conservatively)
put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB. This corresponds to 0.001%
distortion.

IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or home
use is impossible.

As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home or
studio use.

In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1% nonlinear
distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

"Joseph Oberlander" asked
For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.

Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.

Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

Wylie Williams

Wylie Williams wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" asked

For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.

Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.


Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
to get that level of sound. It's usually less expensive to just get
a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.

"Arny Krueger" wrote
AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly
conservatively)
put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB. This corresponds to
0.001%
distortion.

IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or home
use is impossible.

As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home or
studio use.

In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1% nonlinear
distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

Arny,

Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main concern
would be deciding how much power is needed.

Wylie Williams

Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
ringing.

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave. A
component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to 100
kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
ear will just filter them out anyway.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Wylie Williams wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" asked

For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.

Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.


Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system
components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

Actually, IME this is simply not true. The MORE you spend the LESS LIKELY
you'll have a trouble-free component.


If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
to get that level of sound.

Sure and the expensive components sound exactly like the cheaper stuff AND tend
to be less reliable.

It's usually less expensive to just get
a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.

I own 4 Bryston amplifiers and they have been the MOST unreliable of the dozen
in my stable.

"james mitchell" wrote in message
...
Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
ringing.

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave.
A
component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to
100
kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
ear will just filter them out anyway.

But not the ears of Stereophile's readers! :^)

- Gary Rosen

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
...
Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
ringing.

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

Really? Square waves have no ringing on CDs? What would Mr.
Gibbs have to say?

I think you seriously have to reconsider this claim in light of
what happens to harmonic seies like square waves that undergo
abrupt truncation.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In response to Wylie Williams statement
. I want to decide whether my stereo system components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid
speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Mr Oberlander replied
Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

I am surprised that just from reading the phrase "entry level high end" you
would be able to say that it is better than I "can likely hear differences
in".

Wylie Williams

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:JnGXa.68209$o%2.33604@sccrnsc02

AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly
conservatively) put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB.
This corresponds to 0.001% distortion.

IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or
home use is impossible.

As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home
or studio use.

In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1%
nonlinear distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main
concern would be deciding how much power is needed.

Yes, you want to avoid clipping. I see the business of buying power amps as
being a three step process.

(1) First one disabuses oneself of the idea that there are *magic* power
amps, IOW one needs to unlearn the idea that there is some indefinable
something that makes one magic power amp sound a lot better than lesser amps
that look similar on paper. The ultimate sin is not failing to buy that one
good-sounding power amp in the whole universe.

(2) Then one realizes that ultimate sin is instead, running out of power.

(3) Sometimes one finds that having a power amp that is so powerful that it
makes destroying speakers too easy can be a bad thing.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

M2CW.

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
...
I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not
a point of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further
improvement. Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much
in the way of specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are
old news and have been well documented in previous discussions.
Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for
determining at least the general vicinity of this point ?

I will throw out some criteria, everyone is welcome to disagree with
me.

Signal to Noise ratio: That is fairly easy to determine, for
yourself, by listening to test a CD, with various white noise
levels. White noise of -60 dB begins to be difficult to hear. I
find white noise of
-80 db inaudible. 16 bit CD's have a white noise less than -90 dB.

Harmonic and Intermodulation Distortion: If you can find his posts, I
remember John Dunlavy writing that tests showed -90 dB beat levels
were inaudible.

I would say that as a general rule, if the beats created by any
combination of three test tones are -90 dB, than the distortion
created by a music signal is inaudible.

Flatness: +/- 0.5 dB flatness (from 20 Hz to 20 kHz) is the point of
inaudibiliy.

I'd tighten this up to +/- 0.25 dB

I agree with that if we allow the deviations from flatness to be arbitrary.
IOW if the response spec allows 0.5 dB deviations over a few octaves in the
midrange, then there will be audible coloration.

OTOH, nobody is going to hear 0.5 dB down at 20 Khz or 20 Hz when the range
in between is smooth and flat, as it often is.

Jitter: Some CD's may have more jitter than cheap CD players can
correct. Work needs to be done to determine the level of audibility
for jitter.

Yep, but I bet we find audibility at very low levels.

The classic AES conference paper from Dolby labs was quite thorough, and
says the exact opposite.

Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker
systems have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of
audibility for ringing.

The ear tolerates ringing quite well partially since most musical
instruments right LOTS, and what's a little more ringing when there's
already so much in the source material?

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

In practice, violent overkill.

Loudspeaker Polar Response: No one seems to know the ideal polar
response for a loudspeaker. Since each living room is different,
there may never be an answer to this question.

Frequency response?

Very meaningful, both on and off axis.

Time-Alignment?

Nearly irrelevant, except as it affects frequency response.

Phase linearity?

See above.

Power-handling (in spl) at various frequencies and linearity of same.

Meaningful, but an area where the ear is remarkably tolerant because music
is full of harmonics.

"james mitchell" wrote in message

I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave. A
component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to 100
kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
ear will just filter them out anyway.

Yes, I agree, Sterofile's test signal as you discribed it, would be
inapproiate for testing CD players and amplifiers. A better test
signal would be a 200 Hz squarewave with odd harmonics that extend
only up to 20,200 Hz (the the 101th harmonic).

(A squarewave test signal that abruptly eliminates harmonics above a
certain frequency has in itself ringing, caused by "Gibbs" effect.
But, Gibbs effect can be eliminated, with a Gusssian rolloff of the
harmonics. The result is a "squarewave", with a finite rise time,
slightly rounded corners, and no ringing.)

When a CD player or amplifier is tested with this kind of squarewave,
any ringing seen, would caused by the the CD player's or amplifier's
characteristics in the audio band.

Bob Stanton

-snip-

Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main concern
would be deciding how much power is needed.

Wylie Williams

Well Wylie, does this really correspond with your experience in the
business?

KE

Tom Nousaine wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Wylie Williams wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" asked

For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.

Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.


Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system
components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid
speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

Actually, IME this is simply not true. The MORE you spend the LESS LIKELY
you'll have a trouble-free component.


If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an
AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
to get that level of sound.

Sure and the expensive components sound exactly like the cheaper stuff AND
tend
to be less reliable.

It's usually less expensive to just get
a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.

I own 4 Bryston amplifiers and they have been the MOST unreliable of the
dozen
in my stable.









To what do you attrribute that relative lack of reliability? Does the fact
that you *might* use the Brystons more than the average audiophile would, given
your occupational requirements, have anything to do with this? Note that I am
*not* claiming this is the case; I'm just wondering. Also, in comparing, e.g.
amplifiers, of different price points, for long-term reliability, have you
controlled for such possible confounding variables as number of hours used
and/or *type* of usage (e.g. into relatively benign or demanding speaker
loads). I would think that these variables, among others, I'm sure, could have
some bearing on the long-term durability of any product.

Bruce J. Richman

Wylie Williams wrote:

I am surprised that just from reading the phrase "entry level high end" you
would be able to say that it is better than I "can likely hear differences
in".

I'm assuming you have something ccomparable to a NAD or Rotel or maybe a
notch above that.

With normal speakers and listening volumes, you'll never really hear the
differences, though you may swear you really do(ie - it's your mind playing
more $$=better sound tricks on you). Extremely difficult speakers like
Martin Logans and such of course, will tax any amplifier. A pair of
Joseph Audio or Tannoy or simmilar speakers? No problem at all for most
100wpc or so amplifiers.

Of course, change to better speakers... Watch your eyes open wide at how
much it immediately improves. You are far better off auditioning speakers
in your home first - because you'll get far more improvement for your
money here than by a few percentages here and there by replacing components.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


To what do you attribute that relative lack of reliability?

Design.

Does
the fact that you *might* use the Britons more than the average
audiophile would, given your occupational requirements, have anything
to do with this?

SS amps should and IME do run 24/7 for years. I've got a pair of Dyna 400s
that still meet spec, bought in 1975. One is 100% original and the other had
a few small parts changed. I have a 100% original Dyna ST-120 that still
meets original spec!

Note that I am *not* claiming this is the case; I'm just wondering.

Note that Tom has a number of other SS amps that still run great.

Also, in comparing, a.go. amplifiers, of different
price points, for long-term reliability, have you controlled for such
possible confounding variables as number of hours used and/or *type*
of usage (a.go. into relatively benign or demanding speaker loads). I
would think that these variables, among others, I'm sure, could have
some bearing on the long-term durability of any product.

If you want a good reliable SS amp you buy from people like Crown and QSC,
you don't spend anything like top dollar, and you get sound as good as the
best for years and years and yes even after some pretty severe abuse.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:UDkYa.56394$Oz4.14859@rwcrnsc54
"Arny Krueger" wrote
(1) First one disabuses oneself of the idea that there are *magic*
power amps, IOW one needs to unlearn the idea that there is some
indefinable something that makes one magic power amp sound a lot
better than lesser amps that look similar on paper. The ultimate sin
is not failing to buy that one
good-sounding power amp in the whole universe.

(2) Then one realizes that ultimate sin is instead, running out of
power.

(3) Sometimes one finds that having a power amp that is so powerful
that makes destroying speakers too easy can be a bad thing.

My experience with the general public was that low power amps
operated into distortion/clipping are responsible for the vast
majority of speaker destruction.

IME, nothing fries speakers like a fool and a really powerful amp. I think
that the real problem is that people listen while drinking and partying and
just get carried away.

In these later days, just about every stereo receiver puts out 80-100 wpc,
which is hard for me to characterize as being low-powered.

Is this applicable to high end systems? Not in my experience, as
audiophiles are usually too particular to operate their systems this
way. And they have enough power to more or less satisfy their SPL
desires without damaging speakers. But then I ran a mostly mid fi
store, so maybe others with more audiophile experience will
contradict this.

IME speakers have a built-in protection mechanism if they get really loud
before they become damaged.

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
et

SS amps should and IME do run 24/7 for years. I've got a pair of
Dyna 400s that still meet spec, bought in 1975. One is 100% original
and the other had a few small parts changed. I have a 100% original
Dyna ST-120 that still meets original spec!

Of all the SS amps you would hope to fail. I think these might
be at the top of the list. To think of poor people having listened
to these for years and years fills me with pity and horror.

Frankly, on the bench it's not that bad-sounding of an amp if its in good
shape. I should put some files from it up on www.pcabx.com. I think many
people would be surprised. I think that since it was fragile, a lot of
people ended up listening to broken ones.

Well Arny you may be right. The 400 I heard, and the three
120's I have heard sure sounded broken. Badly broken. Then
again a few minutes of them and my ears felt broken.

Besides, I thought you were going to run signals for your web
site through the up to spec 120 and put it on for us to hear some
time ago. If you cannot pick that 120 out using your pcabx
software, I would have to declare the whole abx thing of limited
usefulness. Unless you can show us a typically broken 120 for
comparison. Because besides sounding broken all three 120's
I listened to sounded the same. I cringe thinking of the sound
of those things even thinking about it.

Dennis

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:U1uYa.88798$o
Frankly, on the bench it's not that bad-sounding of an amp if its in good
shape. I should put some files from it up on www.pcabx.com. I think many
people would be surprised. I think that since it was fragile, a lot of
people ended up listening to broken ones.

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:XmFYa.61927$cF.21453@rwcrnsc53

Well Arny you may be right. The 400 I heard, and the three
120's I have heard sure sounded broken. Badly broken. Then
again a few minutes of them and my ears felt broken.

One of the things that distinguishes my implementation of PCABX to power
amplifier testing is that I test whether or not the equipment and the test
setup are working properly, within seconds on either side of the gathering
of data for the listening test, and with exactly zero physical changes to
the test setup. The identical same equipment, software, cables, and other
physical elements are absolutely unchanged for both the listening test and
the technical tests.

I don't believe that this level of quality control is achieved any other
way.

Besides, I thought you were going to run signals for your web
site through the up to spec 120 and put it on for us to hear some
time ago.

That's true. I got a little sidetracked into trivial pursuits such as
recording live music. Stuff like this happens with hobbies.

If you cannot pick that 120 out using your pcabx
software, I would have to declare the whole abx thing of limited
usefulness.

Declare as you will. The performance of ABX testing is pretty well
established, as is the effectiveness of the PCABX approach.

I see here a common problem, where people presume the quality of a test by
evaluating test results that they really have no more reliable evidence to
compare it to. Now, I'm not denying the evidence that you perceived, but in
fact you don't and can't know critical facts, like whether or not the
equipment you listened to met spec at the exact time and in the exact
context you listened to it.

I won't even get into the significant issues related to level matching and
bias control. However, given the freedom afforded to owners of home hi fi
systems and those who operate audio sales rooms I think I can easily do a
pretty good job of making figurative white appear to be black. The inverse
is only a little tougher.

Unless you can show us a typically broken 120 for
comparison. Because besides sounding broken all three 120's
I listened to sounded the same. I cringe thinking of the sound
of those things even thinking about it.

I decline to damage my equipment to satisfy anybody's idle curiosity without
adequate financial compensation.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message

So how much power is needed, anyway? I have a wide variety of expert
opinion to choose from, and I have not experimented with super power. But
if the exquisiteness of high priced stuff is overkill, high power would be
affrdable.

Picking the Wattage for the power amplifier is easy. Lets say your
making a system using a three-way electronic crossover. Make the
amplifier power, for each driver, equal to the rated power handling of
that driver. For example, if your midrange driver can handle 100
Watts, make the midrange amplifier 100 Watts. If your tweeter can only
take 20 Watts, use a low power amplifier for it. etc.

How much power is needed for simulating real musical instruments or a
real band? *A lot*. But, if you put that much sound power into your
living room, how long are your ears going to last?

Bob Stanton

On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" asked
For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.

Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.

Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.

The big guns like B&W have *massive* R&D facilities, and even when you
can buy the identical drivers (as you could from Dynaudio until
recently), you can't hope to match their experience in cabinet and
crossover design.

If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving.

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping.

Without an active crossover, bi-amping is a waste of time.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:J1uYa.88116$uu5.12933@sccrnsc04...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message

My experience with the general public was that low power amps
operated into distortion/clipping are responsible for the vast
majority of speaker destruction.

IME, nothing fries speakers like a fool and a really powerful amp. I think
that the real problem is that people listen while drinking and partying
and
just get carried away.

I certainly don't want to put words into Dick Pierce's mouth, but I believe
"Mr. Speaker" has posted on several occasions that the most common
mechanism for speaker failure is the one Wylie cites - clipping by an
underpowered amp. Any comment, Dick?

- Gary Rosen

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.


This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

- Gary Rosen

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:03:28 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
and good power supply regulation, giving outputs that are free from
artifacts above -100dB. Usefully, you need pay no more than a few
hundred dollars for a top-class used player from this period, such as
the Arcam Alpha 9, Audiolab 8000CD, Meridian 506, Marantz CD-17 KI, or
the Sony XA50ES.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10 Aug 2003 05:48:18 GMT, Marinko wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.


This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
web/magazine links?

Sorry, I can't recall which magazine the article came from which
reported this event.

It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Indeed so, but as with so much in hi-fi, expensive parts do not
guarantee a great speaker! Amateurs find this out to their cost, that
the *real* expense lies in assembling (and learning to use) the test
equipment you need to properly design and build a complete top-quality
loudspeaker. Compare the R&D facilities of KEF or B&W with what the
home-builder has at his disposal, and you can see the problem.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

- Gary Rosen


Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
jitter and D/A conversion.

KE

In article ,
Marinko wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.

This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
what it is commercially worth.

An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
overpriced merchandise.

I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.

Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

I spoke to one of the good and successful speaker designers of today, he
told me that the first 200 pair of speakers he made sounded like crap,
fortunately he was paid to build the last 100 pair of these.

Everyone can buy good quality drivers and components, this is the easy part
of designing speakers.

KE

"Marinko" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.


This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
and good power supply regulation,

One of the first was my Denon - um - circa 1990. 20bit, good power
supply, and overall a sweet design at the time.

I think 13 1/2 years is close enough to the claimed 15.

All Ears wrote:
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

- Gary Rosen


Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
jitter and D/A conversion.

Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998 AES preprint
indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
(as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
factor that they have improved since then?

____
-S.

All Ears wrote:
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams"

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

- Gary Rosen


Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
jitter and D/A conversion.

Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998 AES preprint
indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
(as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
factor that they have improved since then?

____
-S.

On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
wrote:

In article ,
Marinko wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
=20
The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick u=
p
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers wa=
s
easily outperformed by a =A3300 pair of Celestions.

This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or=
=20
web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about=20
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
what it is commercially worth.

An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS=20
is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often=20
discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same=20
speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling=20
overpriced merchandise.

You are completely right, i remember having exactly the same opinion
on the price of speakers many years ago (but i got informed) and i'm
still tempted to do it again when seeing the price of certain
products.....


I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different=20
tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3=20
months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the=20
people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,=20
pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening=20
and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur=20
is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem=20
such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.

But the amateur is right at his own level, for the pair he's building.
He's using leisure time, so he decides to have fun building a speaker
instead of travelling, playing tennis, etc.., economically lost time
so he's right to forget it's value, he gets his money from his job.
Ironically, he may think he's not paid enough for his working time.


Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers=20
who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"=20
of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

On 11 Aug 2003 05:06:00 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
and good power supply regulation,

One of the first was my Denon - um - circa 1990. 20bit, good power
supply, and overall a sweet design at the time.

Please note I said 18-bit *linear*, not just on the label............

I think 13 1/2 years is close enough to the claimed 15.

Depends on your criteria. I'm certainly not suggesting that there
weren't *some* excellent designs around in the early '90s, of which
the Meridians and the early 'single-bit' Sonys would be among the
best.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
wrote:
An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
overpriced merchandise.

I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.

Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

What you say is true, but that is the view from the commercial
side. The view from the amateur side is: He only has to built 1 or 2
pairs (his brother wants a pair), so he can lavish the attention on
the construction and finish to suit him with no commercial restraints.
If he purchases a proven design of drivers and crossover parts,
then measures the T/S parameters of those drivers and fits each to
it's own recommended custom cabinet, then spends months "tweaking" the
crossover parts to his satisfaction, he ends up with a speaker that
not only is unique, but fits his tastes. Usually his cost is MUCH less
than a comparable commercial speaker. Sure he has lots of time
invested, but it is better than drinking beer at the local tavern,
well maybe not. There is also pride of ownership involved in designing
and constructing a "one of a kind".
P. S. The local raw driver outlet charges $5 per driver to measure the
T/S parameters using LEAP, so it is easier to match speakers to each
other and to their boxes.

Bill Eckle

Vanity Web page at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

FOURCADE Jean wrote:

Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
what it is commercially worth.

There is an exception to the DIYer vs commmercial firm equation,
though - that is, if the speaker doens't have a box to tweak
or design(planar/stat/stat/etc)

I suspect that it would not be that hard to duplicate a Magnepan
if you had access to the same panels.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998
AES preprint
indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
(as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
factor that they have improved since then?

I did a quick calculation and while 100 *nano* seconds may be a little
high (for audibility) it is in the ballpark. But readily available crystal
oscillators have jitter well below 100 *pico*seconds - in other words
three orders of magnitude better which translates to 60 dB lower
noise. In other words, jitter should have no effect unless the design
is *really* incompetent. This buttresses the point Dick Pierce
has made many times, that the audio industry is decades behind the
rest of the electronic industry.

- Gary Rosen

On 11 Aug 2003 14:53:14 GMT, Penury wrote:

What you say is true, but that is the view from the commercial
side. The view from the amateur side is: He only has to built 1 or 2
pairs (his brother wants a pair), so he can lavish the attention on
the construction and finish to suit him with no commercial restraints.

No commercial restraints? What, you don't think a large anechoic
chamber, precision measuring microphones, a laser interferometry rig,
strain gauges, accelerometers, all the test gear attached to those
sensors, and access to several decades of research data, is a little
overkill for *properly* designing one pair of speakers? :-)

If he purchases a proven design of drivers and crossover parts,
then measures the T/S parameters of those drivers and fits each to
it's own recommended custom cabinet,

Um, where do you get the 'recommended custom cabinet' design?
Recommended by whom? We're not just talking about cabinet volume here,
but materials and construction, plus internal damping.

then spends months "tweaking" the
crossover parts to his satisfaction, he ends up with a speaker that
not only is unique, but fits his tastes.

Yes, that's true - but will it actually stack up against a commercial
design using similar drivers? Experience suggests not.

Usually his cost is MUCH less
than a comparable commercial speaker. Sure he has lots of time
invested, but it is better than drinking beer at the local tavern,
well maybe not. There is also pride of ownership involved in designing
and constructing a "one of a kind".

Sure, no argument there, so long as you're building for fun and
furniture, and are not bothered about raw performance.

P. S. The local raw driver outlet charges $5 per driver to measure the
T/S parameters using LEAP, so it is easier to match speakers to each
other and to their boxes.

Well, that gets you to the first stage of the 347 mutually
interdependent things you need to optimise...... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering