| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message news:xmg0b.149774$Oz4.41175@rwcrnsc54...
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Looks like this wasn't an original idea of yours. :-) Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. Since the beginning of August, according to Google, there have been 197 posts that contained any of the terms ABX, DBT, or blind. There have been 603 posts that contained the word "the." This surely understates the incidence of posts on the topic, but I think a safe estimate would be that if you picked a random post, you'd have only about a 50-50 chance of running into one on the Great Debate in any of its forms. Furthermore, these posts are concentrated in very few threads. I count fewer than 15 of the last 100 active threads that, based on their subject line (and my recollection of them) would have discussed this topic at any length. That's no accident. RAHE does have a rule against posts on this subject in threads otherwise unrelated to it. Now, that's a tough line to draw, but it clearly has an effect. Finally, take a look at those offending threads. For the most part, they are started by the very people who object to all this objectivism. Others are started by people asking "Why biwire?" and "Can amp stands make a difference?" Surely the results of blind tests on those very questions are a legitimate response. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. Who says the high-end industry should own the term "high end"? This newsgroup is about optimizing the reproduction of sound, especially music. To the extent that members of the self-styled "high-end" industry produce less than optimal products, shouldn't they be denigrated? Or would you prefer that posts only be allowed by industry shills? By the way, this group is currently open to posts *defending* the high-end industry. Perhaps you'd like to step up to the plate. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis Get serious. bob |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:xmg0b.149774$Oz4.41175@rwcrnsc54 Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? I agree with you. Or rec.audio.same-old-arguments. Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. Mostly originating from failed attempts to criticize DBTs. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. Just to make a point, what does it mean to not believe in DBTs? If someone believes in God, that means that he believes that God exists. Is there anyone who seriously doesn't believe in the existence of DBTs? How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. Is that denigrated or criticized? It seems like criticism of *any* audio segment is conceivably on-topic here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. Say what? [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Without compromising the right to free speech on the part of the same old, same old people who start these threads? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Dennis Moore wrote:
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Good idea! And how about rec.audio.sour-grapes for posts like yours, then? The high-end discussion that goes on here is *far* more valuable than what you'll find elsewhere, if only you realized it. -- -S. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In article ,
Rajappa Iyer writes: (David E. Bath) writes: I myself feel it's a totally appropriate topic for RAHE. As mentioned by others, it's not the DBT advocates that are the ones keeping the debate "eternal" since they have not started any of the current threads. And there is an ongoing moratorium on injecting DBT into threads that aren't about it or have it invoked by the con-DBT side. That's as far as I personally am willing to go. Some of the ones who were the most vocal against DBT discussion on the rahe-discuss list have actually started DBT threads, so they have no one to blame but themselves. Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great" as inviting a discussion on DBT? No. What was agreed upon is if the post said something like "and I don't need a DBT to prove it", then we would allow the pro-DBT folks to respond. If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. I mean, it would be nice to discuss the merits and demerits of different equipment / media without having to be constantly and repeatedly subjected to the same old mantras (e.g. "since you did not have a controlled test, you imagined the differences") harangues.) That is exactly what was agreed to, a subjective discussion of equipment will be left alone as long as they leave blind testing out of it. more audiophile-friendly site and give the hardcore debaters their own (unmoderated?) site I disagree that the group is currenly less than friendly to audiophiles. Well, it certainly is far less interesting to read as a result of the preponderance of DBT threads. As has been mentioned, go to groups.google.com and look at the current DBT threads, 99% have been started by the anti-DBT crowd. More importantly, it's far less useful to read. That's your opinion, but obviously not everyone's or there wouldn't be any DBT threads. If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story, then we might as well pack it in. Most of the mass market electronics have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Which does beg the question: what is so high end about high end? A good subject for a thread IMHO.  |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Rajappa Iyer" wrote
Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great" as inviting a discussion on DBT? Obviously, and fortunately no documentation to prove that is needed beyond RAHE itself. If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. Nothing. I mean, it would be nice to discuss the merits and demerits of different equipment / media without having to be constantly and repeatedly subjected to the same old mantras (e.g. "since you did not have a controlled test, you imagined the differences") harangues.) Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it. Wylie Williams. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Mkuller wrote:
"Dennis Moore" Date: 8/18/03 7:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: xmg0b.149774$Oz4.41175@rwcrnsc54 wrote: Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Dennis makes a good point. How about establishing a "rec.audio.dbt" for this endless debate and keeping it out of rec.audio.high-end. That would make this a more audiophile-friendly site and give the hardcore debaters their own (unmoderated?) site What do you think, moderators? There are plenty of 'audiophile friendly' sites of the type you seek. If you want yet another moderated one of your own, start one. Btw, which 'hardcore debater' started the current thread about ABX? You seem strangely silent on that issue, though you've been asked several times now. -- -S. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great" as inviting a discussion on DBT? Only if you want to explain *why* it sounds great, and your explanation does not make any technical sense. It's perfectly OK to say you like SACD's and tell us which equipment or recordings sound great, and I think there is value in that. But if you were to say that SACD sounds so much better because it has a bandwidth exceeding 20KHz, then the natural question is why would anything above 20KHz make a difference. The discussion will likely move on to establishing human audibility limits, etc., and DBT is one way of establishing these limits. If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. I mean, it would be nice to discuss the merits and demerits of different equipment / media without having to be constantly and repeatedly subjected to the same old mantras (e.g. "since you did not have a controlled test, you imagined the differences") harangues.) Well, if you insist that cable A makes a night and day difference relative to cable B, then what would you expect the response to be? There are many interesting things that can be discussed without bringing up DBT. The recent discussion on speaker design is a great example. Even comparing TOSLINK vs coax does not require DBT's, unless you want to go that way. more audiophile-friendly site and give the hardcore debaters their own (unmoderated?) site I disagree that the group is currenly less than friendly to audiophiles. Well, it certainly is far less interesting to read as a result of the preponderance of DBT threads. More importantly, it's far less useful to read. There are many other sites that you can discuss the cable sound to your heart's content. There are even sites where DBT discussion are banned. Why not take advantage of those venues? If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story, then we might as well pack it in. Typical strawman. Many of us have said that whatever methods you use to choose your equipment is OK. There are many factors, besides objective measurements, that go into the purchase decision. Most of the mass market electronics have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Can you give some examples? Are you confusing specs with measurements? And more importantly, isn't it nice to know if mass market electronics can outperform exoteric gear? Which does beg the question: what is so high end about high end? It is about accurate reproduction of sound, and not about the price of the equipment. rsi |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Dennis Moore writes:
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. I don't think that's true, judging by posting volume. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. Well, that's good, isn't it? Seems to me like this is one of the very few places where the more outlandish claims of that industry are treated with due skepticism. Firstly, you don't have to agree with everything the high-end industry does to be a fan of high-end audio reproduction. Secondly, surely the question of whether or not claims about the properties of "high end" audio equipment might be subject to rational inquiry is of pivotal importance. The high-end magazines have already made their decision, but we don't have to follow like sheep. Finally, this group is for discussion of "high-end audio systems", not just praise. Opposing arguments are equally on-topic. Andrew. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:5HC0b.204489$YN5.143391@sccrnsc01...
"Rajappa Iyer" wrote Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great" as inviting a discussion on DBT? Obviously, and fortunately no documentation to prove that is needed beyond RAHE itself. If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. Nothing. Shame on you, Wylie. You yourself started a thread on Aug. 3 entitled, "Competent design." Of almost 90 posts so far, only one uses any of the terms DBT, ABX, or blind. So what are you complaining about? bob |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Rajappa Iyer" wrote Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great" as inviting a discussion on DBT? Obviously, and fortunately no documentation to prove that is needed beyond RAHE itself. If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. Nothing. And you base this on your long experience here, yes? I mean, it would be nice to discuss the merits and demerits of different equipment / media without having to be constantly and repeatedly subjected to the same old mantras (e.g. "since you did not have a controlled test, you imagined the differences") harangues.) Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it. At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of *subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! I could be wrong, though." They'd almost certainly get *no* flak from skeptics. Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to acknowledge the existence of perceptual error. "Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted) 'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data confirming the existence of perceptual error. -- -S. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Dennis Moore writes:
How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. Well, I guess that sort of single me out as one of the offenders in your eyes. I certainly admit to being one of the more vocal critics of the high-end priest's mystiques. But let's look at some of the charges. Claims are made about the relevance of the high-end in the audio marketplace, in direct contravention to the real economic data that CLEARLY shows that is a miniscule part of the whole and losing ground all the time. And what about the charges of witchcraft and flim-flammery. It seems the high-end community, when confronted with the nonsense it propogates about, say, green CD pens and the like, react with denial or indignation. The high-end community can't admit that the green-pen CD craze started as an April fool's joke some years ago then took on a life of its own. The same with "optical impedance matching CD fluid." And we have blue LED dithering CD players and magic pucks and all the rest. Physician, heal thyself first. And my oft made charge about the high-end industry being decades behind the technological state of the art? Well, why don't you educate yourself on the topic: look at the claims being made about the "discovery" of jitter, and then take a look at the numerous technical articles on the topic from back in the late 1950's and 1960's. Look at the tpoic of dither, definitely researched 40 years ago. Look at the AES in the late 1970's regarding many of the issues just now being addressed as "new" discoveries. It seems many in the high-end industry do NOT like being told their little sandbox stinks. Maybe the way to deal with it is NOT to bury one's head along with the cat droppings, but maybe to start identifying and scooping out the cat poop. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In response to
If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. Answer by Wylie Willioams Nothing "Bob Marcus" wrote . Shame on you, Wylie. You yourself started a thread on Aug. 3 entitled, "Competent design." Of almost 90 posts so far, only one uses any of the terms DBT, ABX, or blind. So what are you complaining about? Bob, I am not complaining; I am being blunt. RAHE is what it is, and that means that any thread is read by all the regulars, which includes a group of very active DBT adherents. You are right about the "competent thread" thread; it did not turn into a DBT debate. I was surprised that it didn't, but it could have morphed into one in an eyeblink. No participant can control the responses to his posts; only moderators have that power. Anyone seeking a newsgroup free from DBT must seek elsewhere. I should have sent the originator of that question some info on alternatives. RAHE may be free of vicious flame wars found elsewhere, but the posts are still allowed to be of a nature that upsets thin-skinned people. For example, some people are not accustomed to being told they are wrong or being reffered to in any negative way for their statements, and are recoil when it happens. Wylie |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
Wylie Williams wrote:
In response to If so, I'm at a loss to understand what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues. Answer by Wylie Willioams Nothing "Bob Marcus" wrote . Shame on you, Wylie. You yourself started a thread on Aug. 3 entitled, "Competent design." Of almost 90 posts so far, only one uses any of the terms DBT, ABX, or blind. So what are you complaining about? Bob, I am not complaining; I am being blunt. RAHE is what it is, and that means that any thread is read by all the regulars, which includes a group of very active DBT adherents. It also includes a group of very active DBT opponents, in case you hadn't noticed. Curiously, they seem to be more active at actually starting threads about DBT and ABX and related topics, than the pro-DBT/ABX folks are. You are right about the "competent thread" thread; it did not turn into a DBT debate. I was surprised that it didn't, but it could have morphed into one in an eyeblink. And this bothers you? No participant can control the responses to his posts; only moderators have that power. Anyone seeking a newsgroup free from DBT must seek elsewhere. And to that I say: Bravo RAHE! I should have sent the originator of that question some info on alternatives. RAHE may be free of vicious flame wars found elsewhere, but the posts are still allowed to be of a nature that upsets thin-skinned people. For example, some people are not accustomed to being told they are wrong or being reffered to in any negative way for their statements, and are recoil when it happens. You don't say! -- -S. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
mkuller wrpte:
How about establishing a "rec.audio.dbt" for this endless debate and keeping it out of rec.audio.high-end. That would make this a more audiophile-friendly site and give the hardcore debaters their own (unmoderated?) site Stewart Pinkerton wrote: How about keeping it in for those *real* audiophiles who are actually interested in sound quality, not just fancy front panels and loony-tunes cabling with luxury car price tags? The universe of "real" audiophiles interested in sound quality as determined by blind testing is very small - maybe a dozen, if postings here are any indication - out of a universe of say, 80,000 subscribers to Stereophile magazine. I identify "real" audiophiles as those who are interested enough to keep up with the latest High End equipment and goings-on in the industry. No doubt your mission on RAHE is to convice the other 79,988 of your dogma since you have stated as much before. Be my guest.... Regards, Mike |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote: I am not complaining; I am being blunt. How about being honest? RAHE is what it is, and that means that any thread is read by all the regulars, which includes a group of very active DBT adherents. Why are you ignoring the contrinutions of very active anti-objectivity activitists, some of whom are responsible for starting a seemingly disproportionate number of the threads? Or are you simply interested in a forum that supresses any viewpoints you find uncomfortable? Do you have a problem with your position living or dying on its own merits, not artifically sustained by the life support of censorship of opposing views? You are right about the "competent thread" thread; it did not turn into a DBT debate. I was surprised that it didn't, but it could have morphed into one in an eyeblink. No participant can control the responses to his posts; only moderators have that power. False, post nonsense, and you'll be told it's nonsense. Anyone seeking a newsgroup free from DBT must seek elsewhere. Ah, so it IS censorship and acontrolled, sterile community that you are interested in! I should have sent the originator of that question some info on alternatives. RAHE may be free of vicious flame wars found elsewhere, but the posts are still allowed to be of a nature that upsets thin-skinned people. For example, some people are not accustomed to being told they are wrong or being reffered to in any negative way for their statements, and are recoil when it happens. So, if you say something that is wrong, you want it to be right, and don't want to be told it's wrong. What sort of mamby-pamby world do you want to live in? People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Too bad for your ilk that speakers and amplifiers and cables and magic green pens and wooden hockey pucks don't give two shakes what you or anyone else believes. There's a physical reality out there that could care less about high-end mythology. And the fact that there are people who want to be insulated from that reality and its consequences is but one reason why the high-end is become less of a field and more of a joke. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
snip
People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms KE |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! difference! I could be wrong, though." I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here. They'd almost certainly get *no* flak from skeptics. Wouldn't that be nice. Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to acknowledge the existence of perceptual error. Some, certainly. All, certainly not. One could say the same of some objectivists who seem to feel any comment on the sound of almost any component besides a speaker isn't just subject to lack of certainty but is certain to be meaningless. Both sides of this debate seem to have their militant radicals. "Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted) 'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data confirming the existence of perceptual error. Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted sonic impressions meaningless. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
All Ears wrote:
snip People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms KE Clearly not a current amplifier. If it were, the voltage gain will be halved when the load drops from 16 ohms to 8 ohms. This is a poorly designed voltage amplifier that has an output resistance of approximately 3 ohms. If you like the way this amp sounds, try connecting a 3 ohm resistor (make it high wattage to be safe) in series with each of a solid state amp's outputs. A receiver would be perfect for this purpose. You will most likely find the sound very similar. The 3 ohm output resistance will cause all kinds of frequency response irregularities when driving real speakers, hence the particular sound that distinguishes it from a competently designed amp. I hope you did not pay much for this amp. On the other hand, such is high-end..... By the way, the unit for voltage gain is not V. Try V/V, or simply leave it without dimension. It is a ratio. Once again, you show your vulnerability to high-end marketing. Now, aren't you glad that this newsgroup is accessible to you? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
S888Wheel wrote:
At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of *subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! difference! I could be wrong, though." I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here. When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed. They'd almost certainly get *no* flak from skeptics. Wouldn't that be nice. Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to acknowledge the existence of perceptual error. Some, certainly. All, certainly not. Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all*. One could say the same of some objectivists who seem to feel any comment on the sound of almost any component besides a speaker isn't just subject to lack of certainty but is certain to be meaningless. Both sides of this debate seem to have their militant radicals. Well, let's see, we have speakers, cartridges, digital players, amps, preamps, and cables. Those are the essence of most 'high end' systems today. Of those, only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to sound different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are* expected to produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests. "Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted) 'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data confirming the existence of perceptual error. Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted sonic impressions meaningless. What 'meaning' do they have? The 'impressions' might be accurate; or they might not be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to support the comment. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own 'impressions' of component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty. -- -S. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
On 21 Aug 2003 00:02:47 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
snip People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms It is a voltage source with a poor power supply and/or excessive output impedance of a couple of ohms. Could well be a tube amp. BTW, you don't mean voltage gain, you mean voltage output. If it were a good current source, it would put out 6dB less for each halving of load impedance, i.e. 37dB into 16 ohms 31 dB into 8 ohms 25dB into 4 ohms 19dB into 2 ohms -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"chung" wrote in message
... All Ears wrote: snip People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms KE Clearly not a current amplifier. If it were, the voltage gain will be halved when the load drops from 16 ohms to 8 ohms. But it is not a conventional voltage amplifier either. I know it is designed in an attempt to "simulate" and probably improve what a tube amplifier does. This is a poorly designed voltage amplifier that has an output resistance of approximately 3 ohms. If you like the way this amp sounds, try connecting a 3 ohm resistor (make it high wattage to be safe) in series with each of a solid state amp's outputs. A receiver would be perfect for this purpose. You will most likely find the sound very similar. The 3 ohm output resistance will cause all kinds of frequency response irregularities when driving real speakers, hence the particular sound that distinguishes it from a competently designed amp. The only part of this amplifier I like, is the way it handles the bass area. I hope you did not pay much for this amp. On the other hand, such is high-end..... I am evaluating it as a possible interesting product. By the way, the unit for voltage gain is not V. Try V/V, or simply leave it without dimension. It is a ratio. Right. Once again, you show your vulnerability to high-end marketing. Now, aren't you glad that this newsgroup is accessible to you? Of course I am happy to be able to discuss things like this, with knowledgeable people. KE |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 21 Aug 2003 00:02:47 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: snip People post nonsense about "current amplifiers" and assume since THEY believe it works the way they think with all their hearts, it doesn't make ANY difference if the physical reality is something quite different. Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms It is a voltage source with a poor power supply and/or excessive output impedance of a couple of ohms. Could well be a tube amp. BTW, you don't mean voltage gain, you mean voltage output. If it were a good current source, it would put out 6dB less for each halving of load impedance, i.e. 37dB into 16 ohms 31 dB into 8 ohms 25dB into 4 ohms 19dB into 2 ohms I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
I identify 'real' audiophiles as those who are aware of what a pool of stinking snake oil the self-appointed 'high end' industry really is, Although you eschew saying "all", the figure of speech you use and the picture it paints seems to place every single member of the "high end" industry in the same pool. ("Snake oil' means a product that is worthless to the buyer, right?.) You create a striking image, for which I congratulate you. Do you, mean to imply "all". Surely you will allow for some percentage of the members of the industry to be honest. Of course I don't know every member of the industry, but I am unwilling on general principles to believe that all of them are selling products that they know to be completely worthless. and have both the will and the ability to pick out top-class products from the scams such as 'audiophile' cabling. If having the will and ability rely on listening to components, reading reviews, and conferring with other self aoppointed audiophiles then I am an audiophile. If following correct testing methodology is required then I lack the ability. Should I try to acquire the ability? I lack the will. As a "technically challenged" (as I was called when new to RAHE, where newcomers are graciously greeted) participant on RAHE I see a lot of wrangling about testing that makes me wonder who to believe. People who seem to be experts debate each other's abilities at length, and those of us who are not experts can only sit back and wonder how to sort it out. So by the standards of the typical audiophile I am one. I believe that by your standards I am not one. And all this time I thought I was. Wylie Williams |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
All Ears wrote:
I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? "Discovered"? You have to be kidding. No one uses a pure current source to drive speakers. It is like saying that "someone might have discovered that Ohm's Law apply to audio engineering". |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In article kS61b.217137$Ho3.28451@sccrnsc03,
All Ears wrote: Mr. Pierce, Then please explain what an amplifier with these specifications does? Output power 150 W rms Input sensitivity 1.0 V rms for 150 W into 8 Ohms 0.9 V rms for 150 W into 4 Ohms Voltage gain 39.7 V (32.0 dB) into 16 Ohms 34.4 V (30.7 dB) into 8 Ohms 27.1 V (28.7 dB) into 4 Ohms 17.2 V (24.7 dB) into 2 Ohms It's not a "current amplifier" in the snese that you use it because you use the terminology quite incorrectly. It is a power amplifier acting as a poor voltage source because of its excessively high output impedance, or it is a power amplifier acticting as a poor current source becasue of its excessively low output impedance. You might ask which is it? Well, technically speaking, it's both: the two are utterly equivalent in a strict technical sense. Now, that may not reconcile well with your understanding of the of the term "current source," and it may contradict some manufacturer or another's advertised claims, but, let me assure you, the fault lies with your undewrstanding or that manufacturers claims. But it is not a conventional voltage amplifier either. I know it is designed in an attempt to "simulate" and probably improve what a tube amplifier does. Yes, it most assuredly is. YOUR problem is that you simply do not understand what the terms mean. This amplifier IS a "voltage amplifier" it most assuredly is. Because if you put 1 volt in, it produces more than 1 volt out into its nominal rated impedance. But you seem not to understand what is meant by a "voltage source" or a "current source," and, I fear, you don't WANT to know, because you've been told in the kindest of fashions and still you persist in this misunderstanding. I can't help that any further, sorry. This is a poorly designed voltage amplifier that has an output resistance of approximately 3 ohms. Or, a poorly designed current source with an output impedance of 3 ohms. The only part of this amplifier I like, is the way it handles the bass area. Them I wouyld submit, what that STRONGLY indicates is you like the fact that this amplifier introduces a sizeable frequency response boost at the speakers fundamental resonance due to the large rise in impedance there, and, with that much output impedance is ALSO underdamping the speaker in a possibly significant fashion, which makes that hump in the frequency response larger. You may not like being told that that's what's happening, but whether you like it or not, that IS what's happening. You're fine to like that all you want. I'm not going to pass judgement on whetner that's a good thing or a bad thing, but a significant boost in the low frequency response IS what this amplifier introduces. It's a tone control. If you like its effect, fine, I have no objection. What I object to is your confused technical explanation for what's really going on. Of course I am happy to be able to discuss things like this, with knowledgeable people. Then how about tryingh to learn from some of them. You continue to hold on to this very incorrect view of what "voltage" "current" and "power" means, and incorrect notions of what "source" and "amplification" mean. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
All Ears wrote:
I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? No, really? How proud must they be to have discovered what was well known by electrical engineers more than 70 years ago! How smart they must feel having discovered what almost every audio manufacturer on this planet knows! -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
If having the will and ability rely on listening to components, reading reviews, and conferring with other self aoppointed audiophiles then I am an audiophile. I'll buy that. But I'd recommend a little education beyond those bounds, as well. If following correct testing methodology is required then I lack the ability. It doesn't require that at all. (And you actually do have the ability, although it takes a little trouble.) If you're pursuing "better sound," however you define that, I'd say you're an audiophile. Now, if you want to be a *smart* audiophile, I'd say it'd be a good idea to at least be aware of the differences between various "testing methodologies," and their implications. That will help you decide how much credence to give to those reviewers and other self-appointed audiophiles. bob |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"chung" wrote in message
... All Ears wrote: I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? "Discovered"? You have to be kidding. No one uses a pure current source to drive speakers. It is like saying that "someone might have discovered that Ohm's Law apply to audio engineering". I get the feeling that these guys should possibly stick to the digital stuff, which they do very well KE |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In article WZg1b.220954$Ho3.29139@sccrnsc03,
All Ears wrote: Dick, Please excuse me my ignorence. If I were an expert, I really did not need to ask you guys. I try to understand things from what I think is logical or could be possible. But without an understanding of the basic fundamentals of the way things work, how can one sort out the real stuff from the nonsense. What we have before us is a person, you, who is tossing around technical terms like "current amplifier" or "current source" or "self-damping" used in ways that are, to be honest, nonsensical and contradictory. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
On 21 Aug 2003 17:34:34 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? They didn't 'discover' anything, that is simply a poorly-designed amplifier masquerading as something 'exotic'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
On 21 Aug 2003 17:54:20 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote I identify 'real' audiophiles as those who are aware of what a pool of stinking snake oil the self-appointed 'high end' industry really is, Although you eschew saying "all", the figure of speech you use and the picture it paints seems to place every single member of the "high end" industry in the same pool. ("Snake oil' means a product that is worthless to the buyer, right?.) You create a striking image, for which I congratulate you. Do you, mean to imply "all". No, but certainly many of the so-called ''high-end' amplifier brands such as Jadis, Carey, Unison Research, Audio Note etc, and I do mean *all* of the cable industry, along with the 'tweak' brands such as Shun Mook and RATA, and the 'sound improvement' stand makers such as Mana - but not the Townshend Seismic Sink, despite the name! Surely you will allow for some percentage of the members of the industry to be honest. Of course I don't know every member of the industry, but I am unwilling on general principles to believe that all of them are selling products that they know to be completely worthless. Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be *proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective. As a 'high end' brand, Meridian is the obvious example. and have both the will and the ability to pick out top-class products from the scams such as 'audiophile' cabling. If having the will and ability rely on listening to components, reading reviews, and conferring with other self aoppointed audiophiles then I am an audiophile. If following correct testing methodology is required then I lack the ability. Should I try to acquire the ability? I lack the will. As a "technically challenged" (as I was called when new to RAHE, where newcomers are graciously greeted) participant on RAHE I see a lot of wrangling about testing that makes me wonder who to believe. People who seem to be experts debate each other's abilities at length, and those of us who are not experts can only sit back and wonder how to sort it out. So by the standards of the typical audiophile I am one. I believe that by your standards I am not one. And all this time I thought I was. You just need to put in some work, and you can move from being a dilettante to being a *serious* audiophile! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
In article 9_g1b.221003$YN5.152924@sccrnsc01,
All Ears wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... All Ears wrote: I think that they might have discovered that a "pure current source" did not work too well with dynamic speakers? "Discovered"? You have to be kidding. No one uses a pure current source to drive speakers. It is like saying that "someone might have discovered that Ohm's Law apply to audio engineering". I get the feeling that these guys should possibly stick to the digital stuff, which they do very well If they can't understand Ohm's Law, how the hell are they going to get something substantially more complicated right? That's like saying "these guys should stick to hypersonic aerodynamics, because they can't get walking and chewing gum right." -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
. net... In article WZg1b.220954$Ho3.29139@sccrnsc03, All Ears wrote: Dick, Please excuse me my ignorence. If I were an expert, I really did not need to ask you guys. I try to understand things from what I think is logical or could be possible. But without an understanding of the basic fundamentals of the way things work, how can one sort out the real stuff from the nonsense. What we have before us is a person, you, who is tossing around technical terms like "current amplifier" or "current source" or "self-damping" used in ways that are, to be honest, nonsensical and contradictory. I understand if you expect a certain level of basic understanding from the people posting here. However, without the "non-experts" posting, what would you experts be doing? It think RAHE should be the right place to discuss new products, ideas, theories or maybe even tries things, that would not seem logical from a conventional engineering point of view. I like keeping my mind open, and maybe try to do, or even does, things people says cannot be done. Doing the "impossible" has always been one of the biggest thrills to me. Of course, nothing can replace good engineering, I respect that. What I oppose to, is some sort of general too big a loyalty towards the "rules" , which means that the engineering "one optimal solution to one particular problem" approach, should never rule out doing things differently, just to try. KE |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.dbt
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be *proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective. To the majority of audiophiles the reviews in the audio magazines are the closest thing to product performance information and comparison that are available. Do you refer to proofs that are possible for each audiophile to discover on his own, or is there some source where results are to be found? As a 'high end' brand, Meridian is the obvious example. Obvious to you, but not to me. What makes it obvious to you? Wylie Williams |
) because if you go to the
Linear Mode
