| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Each solid-state amplifier has it's own sound when all other aspects are
held equal. Some will argue this point but IMHO amplifier design is one of the most interesting variables in hi-fi. Cables ? This thread is going to get real big, real quick! "Bob" wrote in message news:3zl9c.108625$_w.1357570@attbi_s53... Okay. I don't claim to be an expert, but I am an audio hobbyist. I've been listening to high-end equipment for some time (at my home and at different high-end shops) and I'll tell you what I've heard and not heard. 1. Speakers. YES. I can clearly hear a difference between speakers. 2. Turntables. I remember listening to a comparison of a Linn Sondek system vs. a SOTA turntable with a Sumiko arm (they both had different cartridges, I can't remember what they were) and I think that I heard a difference, so YES. 3. Digital components (transports, processors, upsamplers, etc.). I"ve listened, and for the life of me I can't tell the difference between a $200 CD player and a $2000 one, so NO. I haven't heard DVD-Audio or SACD though. 4. Electronics (preamps and amps). Hmm. As far as solid state electronics go, I really can't hear a difference. However, I swear that I think that I can hear a difference between it and tubed electronics. YES. 5. Cables. NO. I think that this whole area of high-end is pure B.S. So there you have it. Any comments? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
On 31 Mar 2004 17:53:08 GMT, "Oceans 2K"
wrote: Each solid-state amplifier has it's own sound when all other aspects are held equal. No, they don't. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Some will argue this point but IMHO amplifier design is one of the most interesting variables in hi-fi. Sure it is - but it ain't rocket science! And there are of course many interesting and varied ways to achieve the aim of sonic transparency. Cables ? This thread is going to get real big, real quick! Why? We have yet to see one single solitary example of evidence that cable sound exists, despite the presence of a large pot of cash waiting to be picked up by anyone who can do it. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same. This is an assertion seen often on RAHE. It sounds reasonable to me, but not so straightforward and simple as it sounds. I would like to satisfy my mind on my system's amp with as small an expenditure as possible. Last year, thinking it would be nice to learn the criteria for selecting an amp, I started a thread on RAHE asking how to identify "Nominally Competent" amps. One would assume that on such a basic subject as this there would be a set of objective measurements that established nominal competence, and many RAHE members responded with suggestions re the appropriate specs. The suggestions had some commonality, but were different enough to leave considerable doubt. There were posts saying that there were such specs but they were not available to the public. One of the best replies named brand and models numbers and gave descriptions of the differences in sound between many highly respected amps, which led me to wonder, if they sounded different, if any were NC. One professional posted that he knew the appropriate criteria but they were, like almost all his esoteric knowledge, proprietary. (shades of Top Gun - "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you") It would appear that it is not as simple as I hoped to determine whether an amplifier qualifies as nominally competent. So while I appreciate the idea that all these "NC" amps sound the same, we all seem to be on our own in finding which amps qualify. Even if someone were willing and able to conducts tests he would have to have one reference amp that was known to be NC. Then he would enter the dark realm of test methodology. That prospect is daunting enough to make one want to buy an audiophile magazine and check out the flavor of the month. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same. This is an assertion seen often on RAHE. It sounds reasonable to me, but not so straightforward and simple as it sounds. I would like to satisfy my mind on my system's amp with as small an expenditure as possible. Last year, thinking it would be nice to learn the criteria for selecting an amp, I started a thread on RAHE asking how to identify "Nominally Competent" amps. One would assume that on such a basic subject as this there would be a set of objective measurements that established nominal competence, One would be wrong, then. "Nominally competent" means competent to drive a particular load--in the case of audio, the ability to drive a particular set of speakers in a particular room at a particular loudness level without producing audible distortion. Now, if we know all those things (speakers, room, loudness), presumably some engineer could give you a good idea of how big an amp you'd need. But "nominally competent" is not some abstract standard that amps either meet or don't meet in all cases. A 20-watt amp might be quite competent driving a little ported speaker and quite incompetent pushing a big, sealed subwoofer. and many RAHE members responded with suggestions re the appropriate specs. The suggestions had some commonality, but were different enough to leave considerable doubt. There were posts saying that there were such specs but they were not available to the public. One of the best replies named brand and models numbers and gave descriptions of the differences in sound between many highly respected amps, which led me to wonder, if they sounded different, if any were NC. If they all sounded different, no more than one was NC! Odds are the only reason they all "sounded" different was because they all looked different. One professional posted that he knew the appropriate criteria but they were, like almost all his esoteric knowledge, proprietary. (shades of Top Gun - "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you") Are you sure he wasn't just telling you that the information you want can't be found on spec sheets? It would appear that it is not as simple as I hoped to determine whether an amplifier qualifies as nominally competent. So while I appreciate the idea that all these "NC" amps sound the same, we all seem to be on our own in finding which amps qualify. Available (objective) evidence suggests that most modern solid state amps are. Even if someone were willing and able to conducts tests he would have to have one reference amp that was known to be NC. Then he would enter the dark realm of test methodology. That prospect is daunting enough to make one want to buy an audiophile magazine and check out the flavor of the month. The information you want can't be found there, either. Look, the task isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. Plug it in, and see if it works. By which I mean, take the amp home, insert it in your system, put on a big orchestral recording, crank the volume up as high as you'll ever want to crank it, and ask yourself, "Does this sound OK?" If it does, the amp's competent. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
wow
Even my very hi-fi ignorant wife heard a difference when I swapped out my defective amplifier with a mid-fi receiver. Not first time I did that either. So for the 20 years I've been swapping and trading I've been hearing things !?! I need to see a shrink! TC "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:AQYac.54944$w54.339056@attbi_s01... On 31 Mar 2004 17:53:08 GMT, "Oceans 2K" wrote: Each solid-state amplifier has it's own sound when all other aspects are held equal. No, they don't. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Some will argue this point but IMHO amplifier design is one of the most interesting variables in hi-fi. Sure it is - but it ain't rocket science! And there are of course many interesting and varied ways to achieve the aim of sonic transparency. Cables ? This thread is going to get real big, real quick! Why? We have yet to see one single solitary example of evidence that cable sound exists, despite the presence of a large pot of cash waiting to be picked up by anyone who can do it. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Bob Marcus" wrote in
Look, the task isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. Plug it in, and see if it works. By which I mean, take the amp home, insert it in your system, put on a big orchestral recording, crank the volume up as high as you'll ever want to crank it, and ask yourself, "Does this sound OK?" If it does, the amp's competent. That would be a helpful answer to some people, but I never had a system that didn't sound "OK". What I have now is "Pretty Good", which is three notches above "OK" on my personal scale. It may be foolish to seek to have as close to "Wonderful" as I can afford, but I accept this character flaw in myself (and others) and persist in it. I conditionally accept my CD, turntable and cables as sufficient. Before I get too crazy on speakers I would like to assure myself that the sound quality and power output of my amplification are not a limiting factor. The question of how to determine if an amp is "nominally competent" seems to be the first step. Once the NC question is answered I can seek the answer to the question "how much power is enough to be sure I am extracting all the performance from whatever speaker I end up with". Any money I save by not overspending on the amp can be applied to the speakers. .. The audiophile press persists in saying that you can get better and better sound in amps by spending more and more money. Many RAHE members say that a nominally competent amp can be had for comparatively modest cost. Having sold low fi to mid fi for many years I know that there are many low priced amps that definitely sound worse than their higher priced brethren. Unfortunately I have too little experience with high end to know where the point of "nominal competence" begins. It would be very helpful if this term "nominally competent" has a meaning that is definable and usable. Wylie Williams |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in Look, the task isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. Plug it in, and see if it works. By which I mean, take the amp home, insert it in your system, put on a big orchestral recording, crank the volume up as high as you'll ever want to crank it, and ask yourself, "Does this sound OK?" If it does, the amp's competent. That would be a helpful answer to some people, but I never had a system that didn't sound "OK". In that case, you've never had an amp that wasn't nominally competent. Why is this so hard for you to accept? What I have now is "Pretty Good", which is three notches above "OK" on my personal scale. It may be foolish to seek to have as close to "Wonderful" as I can afford, but I accept this character flaw in myself (and others) and persist in it. I conditionally accept my CD, turntable and cables as sufficient. Before I get too crazy on speakers I would like to assure myself that the sound quality and power output of my amplification are not a limiting factor. But whether or not your amp's power output is a limiting factor is substantially dependent on your speakers (and your room, and how loud you listen). You cannot answer that question before you've chosen your speakers. The question of how to determine if an amp is "nominally competent" seems to be the first step. No. Choosing your speakers is the first step. Once the NC question is answered I can seek the answer to the question "how much power is enough to be sure I am extracting all the performance from whatever speaker I end up with". Now I'm sure you don't get it. "Nominally competent" means, in essence, flat frequency response and enough power. An amp isn't competent unless it can deliver enough power. Any money I save by not overspending on the amp can be applied to the speakers. . The audiophile press persists in saying that you can get better and better sound in amps by spending more and more money. Indeed they do, and lots of audiophiles believe them. Others don't, however, and have offered some very good technical reasons why not. Many RAHE members say that a nominally competent amp can be had for comparatively modest cost. Having sold low fi to mid fi for many years I know that there are many low priced amps that definitely sound worse than their higher priced brethren. This is often true when you know what the pricetag says. ;-) I'd bet if you went back and compared those amps without knowing which was which, you'd be a lot less definite. Unfortunately I have too little experience with high end to know where the point of "nominal competence" begins. It has nothing whatsoever to do with price, for starters. It would be very helpful if this term "nominally competent" has a meaning that is definable and usable. One more time: A nominally competent amplifier is one that delivers a signal into a particular load (your speakers, your room, etc.) without audible distortion--that is, with flat frequency response and minimal clipping. Now, go out there and buy the best speakers you can afford. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Oceans 2K" wrote in message
... wow Even my very hi-fi ignorant wife heard a difference when I swapped out my defective amplifier with a mid-fi receiver. The key here is that it was "defective". No one said all amps, broken or otherwise, sound the same. The nominally competent qualifier exists specifically to eliminate broken amps from the statement. Not first time I did that either. So for the 20 years I've been swapping and trading I've been hearing things !?! I need to see a shrink! Depends on what you mean by hearing things. *snip* |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
... "Bob Marcus" wrote in Look, the task isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. Plug it in, and see if it works. By which I mean, take the amp home, insert it in your system, put on a big orchestral recording, crank the volume up as high as you'll ever want to crank it, and ask yourself, "Does this sound OK?" If it does, the amp's competent. That would be a helpful answer to some people, but I never had a system that didn't sound "OK". What I have now is "Pretty Good", which is three notches above "OK" on my personal scale. It may be foolish to seek to have as close to "Wonderful" as I can afford, but I accept this character flaw in myself (and others) and persist in it. I conditionally accept my CD, turntable and cables as sufficient. Before I get too crazy on speakers I would like to assure myself that the sound quality and power output of my amplification are not a limiting factor. The question of how to determine if an amp is "nominally competent" seems to be the first step. Once the NC question is answered I can seek the answer to the question "how much power is enough to be sure I am extracting all the performance from whatever speaker I end up with". Any money I save by not overspending on the amp can be applied to the speakers. . The audiophile press persists in saying that you can get better and better sound in amps by spending more and more money. Many RAHE members say that a nominally competent amp can be had for comparatively modest cost. Having sold low fi to mid fi for many years I know that there are many low priced amps that definitely sound worse than their higher priced brethren. Unfortunately I have too little experience with high end to know where the point of "nominal competence" begins. It would be very helpful if this term "nominally competent" has a meaning that is definable and usable. Oh, it's definable. If Stewart, Steven, Bob, or Tom can't hear a difference from their own amps using dbt, then it's "nominally competent". If they do hear a difference, it isn't. Whether that's useful I leave up to you. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
I'll try this one more time, for those of you in the "there is no difference"
school of amplifier design. Take one person's system at home. Replace just the amplifier with different types. Listen. See if everyone agrees that the resulting sound is identical, especially to the person's who owns and is familiar with the system. If all amplifiers are "technically perfect" since 1950, there should be NO difference AT ALL in the sound. But, if there IS a difference, whether it is qualifiable as to type (ie: more treble, less bass) or whatever, then "all amplifiers sound the same" is wrong. -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
RBernst929 wrote:
I'll try this one more time, for those of you in the "there is no difference" school of amplifier design. Who would that be? Take one person's system at home. Replace just the amplifier with different types. Listen. See if everyone agrees that the resulting sound is identical, especially to the person's who owns and is familiar with the system. If all amplifiers are "technically perfect" since 1950, there should be NO difference AT ALL in the sound. But, if there IS a difference, whether it is qualifiable as to type (ie: more treble, less bass) or whatever, then "all amplifiers sound the same" is wrong. -Bob Bernstein. No one's ever said that all amplifiers sound the same. Ever. As for your little experiment, it's about as meaningful as pointing to the sun rising in the east as proof that it revolves around the earth. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963 |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
OK. I get it. If I don't hear any distortion it passes the test. Wow, I
had it all wrong. I thought that there was some objective verifiable criteria. Now I can buy a $199 Kenwood receiver and be happy. And all those kids who drive those boom cars have great equipment because they don't hear any distortion. This new subjective approach sounds great. Got to stop now; it's time to got listen to some expensive cables. Wylie Williams "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:CJpbc.62676$w54.390067@attbi_s01... RBernst929 wrote: I'll try this one more time, for those of you in the "there is no difference" school of amplifier design. Who would that be? Take one person's system at home. Replace just the amplifier with different types. Listen. See if everyone agrees that the resulting sound is identical, especially to the person's who owns and is familiar with the system. If all amplifiers are "technically perfect" since 1950, there should be NO difference AT ALL in the sound. But, if there IS a difference, whether it is qualifiable as to type (ie: more treble, less bass) or whatever, then "all amplifiers sound the same" is wrong. -Bob Bernstein. No one's ever said that all amplifiers sound the same. Ever. As for your little experiment, it's about as meaningful as pointing to the sun rising in the east as proof that it revolves around the earth. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963 |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
No by defective I meant one day my Carver TFM-15 amplifier decided to not
turn on. To not miss a weekend of listening I inserted a Onkyo 2ch receiver (6 mos old). Carver is fixed. It was main power switch. Nothing to effect sound quality. Digi-Key catalog and soldering iron fixed problem. These are 2 mid-fi SS components which have quite different overall sound. Have had numerous mid to higher end amplifiers in my system in years past. Past ref speakers were NHT Super Ones and Paradigm Monitor 7 both which I felt did a good job of revealing amplifier characteristics. For one comparo, I traded brother's ADCOM GFA-545II for my Carver for a month. Now that was a contrast. I'm new to this forum...I am having a tough time believing that there are intelligent audiophiles who believe SS amplifiers all have same subjective sound. "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message news:3tibc.62314$JO3.38124@attbi_s04... "Oceans 2K" wrote in message ... wow Even my very hi-fi ignorant wife heard a difference when I swapped out my defective amplifier with a mid-fi receiver. The key here is that it was "defective". No one said all amps, broken or otherwise, sound the same. The nominally competent qualifier exists specifically to eliminate broken amps from the statement. Not first time I did that either. So for the 20 years I've been swapping and trading I've been hearing things !?! I need to see a shrink! Depends on what you mean by hearing things. *snip* |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
I aplologize for my inept internet skills. Somehow on the post below I
seem to be replying to Bob Bernstein when I was replying to the Bob Marcus post below. I also apololgize for the frivolus tone of my reply to Bob Marcus, if not my dissatisfaction with the general idea that I got from his post, which is that "plug it in and play it; if you don't hear distortion it's as good as it gets". That sounds like a subjective answer, and was asking for an objective answer. Mind you, I have no objection to the subjective school of audiophilia, as I have followed that path for years. But as RAHE has many committed and persuasive adherents to the objective school I thought I would find out some objective criteria for amp selection. But not too successfully. Noussaine, for example, tells of his dozen or so amps that all sound the same to him. I don't doubt that he ( as well as all the other adherents of the "if it's a nominally competent amp it sounds like all the other nominally competent amps" school ) has a great system and great ears, but that's no help to me. I would like to find out the criteria for NC status. Mr. Marcus says "flat frequency response and enough power" and "without audible distortion". I am under the impression that flat frequency response is as common as dirt. As far as "without audible distortion" goes I have considerable experience in the mid-fi business and I know that the vast majority of healthy young males with good hearing think anything that plays loud has "no audible distortion". Or is it "no audible distortion as judged by a golden eared listener"? Who certifies the goldenness of the ears? Certainly professional audiophile reviewers would be the clear choice for experienced golden ears, but they all say that even the best amps have very different sounds. Perplexing! Besides, if distortion is audible variation from the original sound then then vast majority of reproduced sound I have heard in my life has been audibly distorted. Sometimes more distorted, sometimes less, sometimes a few moments of a convincing illusion, sometimes "euphonic coloration" (which I definea s likeable distortion), and only occasionally apparently free of distortion. As for selecting the speaker first, that's an interesting thought. And it's worth it's own thread. I thought I would try to settle the quality issue first and deal with the quantity issue later. Besides, after selecting a speaker I would have to choose an amp, so knowing the elusive criteria for "nominally competent" would be the starting point, wouldn't it? Maybe I have a better speaker than I know, but my amp is lacking. Wylie Williams Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:eJqbc.64188$JO3.38474@attbi_s04... OK. I get it. If I don't hear any distortion it passes the test. Wow, I had it all wrong. I thought that there was some objective verifiable criteria. Now I can buy a $199 Kenwood receiver and be happy. And all those kids who drive those boom cars have great equipment because they don't hear any distortion. This new subjective approach sounds great. Got to stop now; it's time to got listen to some expensive cables. Wylie Williams "Bob Marcus" wrote in Look, the task isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. Plug it in, and see if it works. By which I mean, take the amp home, insert it in your system, put on a big orchestral recording, crank the volume up as high as you'll ever want to crank it, and ask yourself, "Does this sound OK?" If it does, the amp's competent. That would be a helpful answer to some people, but I never had a system that didn't sound "OK". In that case, you've never had an amp that wasn't nominally competent. Why is this so hard for you to accept? What I have now is "Pretty Good", which is three notches above "OK" on my personal scale. It may be foolish to seek to have as close to "Wonderful" as I can afford, but I accept this character flaw in myself (and others) and persist in it. I conditionally accept my CD, turntable and cables as sufficient. Before I get too crazy on speakers I would like to assure myself that the sound quality and power output of my amplification are not a limiting factor. But whether or not your amp's power output is a limiting factor is substantially dependent on your speakers (and your room, and how loud you listen). You cannot answer that question before you've chosen your speakers. The question of how to determine if an amp is "nominally competent" seems to be the first step. No. Choosing your speakers is the first step. Once the NC question is answered I can seek the answer to the question "how much power is enough to be sure I am extracting all the performance from whatever speaker I end up with". Now I'm sure you don't get it. "Nominally competent" means, in essence, flat frequency response and enough power. An amp isn't competent unless it can deliver enough power. Any money I save by not overspending on the amp can be applied to the speakers. . The audiophile press persists in saying that you can get better and better sound in amps by spending more and more money. Indeed they do, and lots of audiophiles believe them. Others don't, however, and have offered some very good technical reasons why not. Many RAHE members say that a nominally competent amp can be had for comparatively modest cost. Having sold low fi to mid fi for many years I know that there are many low priced amps that definitely sound worse than their higher priced brethren. This is often true when you know what the pricetag says. ;-) I'd bet if you went back and compared those amps without knowing which was which, you'd be a lot less definite. Unfortunately I have too little experience with high end to know where the point of "nominal competence" begins. It has nothing whatsoever to do with price, for starters. It would be very helpful if this term "nominally competent" has a meaning that is definable and usable. One more time: A nominally competent amplifier is one that delivers a signal into a particular load (your speakers, your room, etc.) without audible distortion--that is, with flat frequency response and minimal clipping. Now, go out there and buy the best speakers you can afford. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
I'm simply pointing out that if there is a DIFFERENCE in the resulting
sound when changing one element of a system, that ratifies the merchandising of different components. It does'nt matter if we can measure the difference or not within amplifiers, as long as the resultant sound is changed at the listening position, then there is sound reason for a consumer to choose among different products. These differences create preferances which are legitimate buying decisions among products. Indeed, this is why so many different amplifiers exist. Some people on this newsgroup think all amplifiers are perfect since 1950 and hardly any improvement has taken place, suggesting that all sound differences are in our minds, or resulting from sighted marketing practices. It does'nt matter. The only thing that matters is the resultant change in sound at the listening position when one element of a system is changed. If there is a difference, then the consumer has a valid purchase choice. If there is no difference, then spending $20,000 on a high end amplifier as opposed to a $200 amplifier offers no rational reason. -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
You have asked from a place of affirmed confusion a series of questions
about amps. That one has questions is good, that questions can be posed about a thesis doesn't harm the thesis, and that one might not accept the answers does nothing to the correctness of the thesis. The amp that doesn't exceed it's specs for a given speaker, with regard to current reserves, headroom, distortion, etc. will most likely not be different from another similar amp in a listening alone test as to being able to discriminate which is which. The concept of threshold comes in here also, various amp artifacts which rise above a certain amplitude,ie. threshold, can be percieved and those which do not can not; as established in tests to determine such things. Various types of signal distortion are examples. The concept often bantered about of "mid high" are meaningless when the above conditions are met. A "mid" amp that doesn't exceed design parameters nor produce artifacts above known thresholds can not by listening tests alone be distingushed from those "high" amps often found on "reccomended" lists. Amp performance is today a commodity available from any number of brands which satisify the above. You mention nad, others have mentioned adcom etc. and all serve as well as those amps with the famious "high end" marketing reputations and consumers of editoral inches in the hi fi mags. Design folk have learned how to produce amps which meet specs and threshold levels so as to make them to be percieved the same using listening tests alone. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"practices. It does'nt matter. The only thing that matters is the
resultant change in sound at the listening position when one element of a system is changed. If there is a difference, then the consumer has a valid purchase choice. If there is no difference, then spending $20,000 on a high end amplifier as opposed to a $200 amplifier offers no rational reason." Amen brother, and when only one thing was changed, a cloth covering connections so which amp is active in a comparsion is unknown, the differences disappear. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AQYac.54944$w54.339056@attbi_s01...
On 31 Mar 2004 17:53:08 GMT, "Oceans 2K" wrote: Each solid-state amplifier has it's own sound when all other aspects are held equal. No, they don't. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same, when you don't *know* which one is connected. This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that sound the same) same sound the same'. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Wylie Williams wrote:
I aplologize for my inept internet skills. Somehow on the post below I seem to be replying to Bob Bernstein when I was replying to the Bob Marcus post below. I also apololgize for the frivolus tone of my reply to Bob Marcus, if not my dissatisfaction with the general idea that I got from his post, which is that "plug it in and play it; if you don't hear distortion it's as good as it gets". That sounds like a subjective answer, and was asking for an objective answer. Yeah, but it was a "subjective" answer based on my objective answer. Mind you, I have no objection to the subjective school of audiophilia, as I have followed that path for years. But as RAHE has many committed and persuasive adherents to the objective school I thought I would find out some objective criteria for amp selection. But not too successfully. Noussaine, for example, tells of his dozen or so amps that all sound the same to him. I don't doubt that he ( as well as all the other adherents of the "if it's a nominally competent amp it sounds like all the other nominally competent amps" school ) has a great system and great ears, but that's no help to me. I would like to find out the criteria for NC status. Mr. Marcus says "flat frequency response and enough power" and "without audible distortion". I am under the impression that flat frequency response is as common as dirt. Seems so. As far as "without audible distortion" goes I have considerable experience in the mid-fi business and I know that the vast majority of healthy young males with good hearing think anything that plays loud has "no audible distortion". Or is it "no audible distortion as judged by a golden eared listener"? Who certifies the goldenness of the ears? Certainly professional audiophile reviewers would be the clear choice for experienced golden ears, but they all say that even the best amps have very different sounds. Perplexing! Who cares who certifies anything? Your ears are the only ones that matter. If the amp doesn't seem to be distorting to you, then it's good enough for you, right? Besides, if distortion is audible variation from the original sound then then vast majority of reproduced sound I have heard in my life has been audibly distorted. Sometimes more distorted, sometimes less, sometimes a few moments of a convincing illusion, sometimes "euphonic coloration" (which I definea s likeable distortion), and only occasionally apparently free of distortion. Actually, you've never heard rerpoduced sound that wasn't distorted. The question is, what caused the distortion? Probably the speakers, not the amp. As for selecting the speaker first, that's an interesting thought. And it's worth it's own thread. I thought I would try to settle the quality issue first and deal with the quantity issue later. Besides, after selecting a speaker I would have to choose an amp, so knowing the elusive criteria for "nominally competent" would be the starting point, wouldn't it? Maybe I have a better speaker than I know, but my amp is lacking. Maybe (although probably not). But unless you've got a fair bit of measuring equipment and the know-how to use them, you can't determine whether an amp is competent to do what you're asking it to do. Now, if you know what kind of a load your speakers present, and how powerful your amp is into a load like that, and how big a room you're trying to fill, you can make a reasonable assessment. But there's no measurement that's going to tell you, "54 watts isn't enough, but 55 watts is." That's why even objectivists have to trust their ears. (We just don't trust them when they're telling us something we know can't be true!) bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Oceans 2K wrote:
I'm new to this forum...I am having a tough time believing that there are intelligent audiophiles who believe SS amplifiers all have same subjective sound. Welcome. Yes, we're a pretty unusual bunch. To be a bit more precise, some of us believe that most SS amps are indistinguishable when they are not pushed beyond their capabilities. (Note that there are a few key qualifiers in that sentence.) And when amps do sound different, we expect there to be a straightforward engineering explanation for the difference (e.g., one amp is clipping, one amp's output impedance is high enough to affect frequency response, etc.) One thing you need to understand is what we mean by "sonically indistinguishable." What we mean is that you cannot tell them apart when you don't know which one is which. There have been a number of experiments that show that people may perceive differences between amps, but when you cover the amps so they don't know which is which, those differences disappear. The theory (and there's a substantial body of research supporting this theory) is that seeing that two things are different influences how you hear them. We've had raging debates about this, which you'll discover if you hang around long enough. Note that we aren't saying that the amps are identical. We're saying that the differences among them are so small that the human ear (which has its limits as a test device) can't detect them. And we're saying that when you hear two things that your ear really can't tell apart, you are liable to hear them as different anyway, because you brain takes into account visual and other information when it makes that "same-different" determination. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Oceans 2K wrote: I'm new to this forum...I am having a tough time believing that there are intelligent audiophiles who believe SS amplifiers all have same subjective sound. Welcome. Yes, we're a pretty unusual bunch. To be a bit more precise, some of us believe that most SS amps are indistinguishable when they are not pushed beyond their capabilities. (Note that there are a few key qualifiers in that sentence.) And when amps do sound different, we expect there to be a straightforward engineering explanation for the difference (e.g., one amp is clipping, one amp's output impedance is high enough to affect frequency response, etc.) One thing you need to understand is what we mean by "sonically indistinguishable." What we mean is that you cannot tell them apart when you don't know which one is which. There have been a number of experiments that show that people may perceive differences between amps, but when you cover the amps so they don't know which is which, those differences disappear. The theory (and there's a substantial body of research supporting this theory) is that seeing that two things are different influences how you hear them. We've had raging debates about this, which you'll discover if you hang around long enough. Note that we aren't saying that the amps are identical. We're saying that the differences among them are so small that the human ear (which has its limits as a test device) can't detect them. And we're saying that when you hear two things that your ear really can't tell apart, you are liable to hear them as different anyway, because you brain takes into account visual and other information when it makes that "same-different" determination. So long as Bob is giving you a basic rundown on what we call the "objectivist" position here on RAHE, let me fill you in on one key aspect he doesn't cover. The *way* that objectivists determine their is no difference is through double-blind a-b (preference) or a-b-x (difference) testing. The only problem is, they have never verified that the tests themselves don't throw the user into a different evaluative mode whereby the ear-brain construct that turns sound into hearing musice doesn't lose track of what is going on (in other words, loose a musical frame of reference as one would have when doing ordinary evaluative testing.) The objectivists simply ignore this inconvenient fact, and instead insist that since this type of testing is used in other fields and in audiometric measurement (simple two-dimensional signal testing), it has been proven. Look at it this way: 1) Everybody who thinks amps or cd players sound somewhat different is wrong and suffering from bias and delusion, or 2) the chosen testing methodology itself is flawed. At this point there is no definitive evidence one way or the other...so move forward but tread with care and don't ignore common sense. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
OK, I am starting to see your POV. But I will respectfully agree to
disagree. I remember many articles on this topic back when AUDIO Magazine was around. ( I read that mag cover to cover every month! Sad to see it go years back.) I notice one of the conditions of the "test" is flat freq response in human audio spectrum (20hz-20Khz). Most of the mid-fi components I swear sound different...do. But that is because the output signal has some bumps and dips at specific frequencies. That Onkyo I spoke of had a definite bump at about 150Hz causing my normally flat NHT 2.5i's to give a James Taylor concert some West Coast rap-like boom. That's what my wife noticed. So I see the objectivist's point. Esp the psychological aspect. My only hang up is: don't most amplifier designers put a sonic signature (aka: bumps and dips in freq resp) on their designs? This would explain the glaring differences when I inserted my brother's Adcom 545 into my normal Carver TFM-15 setup. Excellent debate. "Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... Oceans 2K wrote: I'm new to this forum...I am having a tough time believing that there are intelligent audiophiles who believe SS amplifiers all have same subjective sound. Welcome. Yes, we're a pretty unusual bunch. To be a bit more precise, some of us believe that most SS amps are indistinguishable when they are not pushed beyond their capabilities. (Note that there are a few key qualifiers in that sentence.) And when amps do sound different, we expect there to be a straightforward engineering explanation for the difference (e.g., one amp is clipping, one amp's output impedance is high enough to affect frequency response, etc.) One thing you need to understand is what we mean by "sonically indistinguishable." What we mean is that you cannot tell them apart when you don't know which one is which. There have been a number of experiments that show that people may perceive differences between amps, but when you cover the amps so they don't know which is which, those differences disappear. The theory (and there's a substantial body of research supporting this theory) is that seeing that two things are different influences how you hear them. We've had raging debates about this, which you'll discover if you hang around long enough. Note that we aren't saying that the amps are identical. We're saying that the differences among them are so small that the human ear (which has its limits as a test device) can't detect them. And we're saying that when you hear two things that your ear really can't tell apart, you are liable to hear them as different anyway, because you brain takes into account visual and other information when it makes that "same-different" determination. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Oceans 2K wrote:
OK, I am starting to see your POV. But I will respectfully agree to disagree. Fair enough, though hardly in the spirit of the proceedings! ;-) I remember many articles on this topic back when AUDIO Magazine was around. ( I read that mag cover to cover every month! Sad to see it go years back.) I notice one of the conditions of the "test" is flat freq response in human audio spectrum (20hz-20Khz). Most of the mid-fi components I swear sound different...do. But that is because the output signal has some bumps and dips at specific frequencies. That Onkyo I spoke of had a definite bump at about 150Hz causing my normally flat NHT 2.5i's to give a James Taylor concert some West Coast rap-like boom. That's what my wife noticed. Really? You actually measured this? I'm not a measurer, myself, but people who are tell me that most name-brand SS amps are pretty much ruler-flat these days. They'd certainly be flatter than any speaker, including that NHT. (That's no knock on a fine speaker, by the way.) So I see the objectivist's point. Esp the psychological aspect. My only hang up is: don't most amplifier designers put a sonic signature (aka: bumps and dips in freq resp) on their designs? This would explain the glaring differences when I inserted my brother's Adcom 545 into my normal Carver TFM-15 setup. Well, you'd have to measure both of them to know for sure. As for sonic signatures, I'm sure some do. Others just do a lousy job of engineering, and get one as a matter of course. But producing an amp with flat FR is not rocket science (just audio science), and you really have to wonder why anyone would do otherwise. If you want sonic signatures like that, you should buy a flat amp and an equalizer, and roll your own. Excellent debate. You ARE new here. ;-) bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Harry Lavo wrote:
The *way* that objectivists determine their is no difference is through double-blind a-b (preference) or a-b-x (difference) testing. The only problem is, they have never verified that the tests themselves don't throw the user into a different evaluative mode whereby the ear-brain construct that turns sound into hearing musice doesn't lose track of what is going on (in other words, loose a musical frame of reference as one would have when doing ordinary evaluative testing.) The objectivists simply ignore this inconvenient fact, and instead insist that since this type of testing is used in other fields and in audiometric measurement (simple two-dimensional signal testing), it has been proven. The inconvenient fact that you don't mention is that if there is no change in signal due to acoustic stimulus at the auditory nerve before it gets to the brain, the 'ear-brain construct' is IRRELEVANT. When this is raised, it is rather amusing about how you then handwave about 'hearing below threshold,' based on an old paper that no one else has found interesting enough to even try to reproduce the results. In the meantime, the evidence against your position continues to mount. Look at it this way: 1) Everybody who thinks amps or cd players sound somewhat different is wrong and suffering from bias and delusion, or This is distortion of the so-called 'objectivist position' and you know it. 2) the chosen testing methodology itself is flawed. Speculation only. Name a serious auditory researcher that takes that position. At this point there is no definitive evidence one way or the other...so move forward but tread with care and don't ignore common sense. Common sense would indicate that claiming that humans can hear below a threshold that has been known and verified countless times since the 19th C is something that should be taken with skepticism. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
How does the explanation of the success/repeatability/predictive power of
controled listening alone testing differ from those apologists for astrology, medical diagnosis by reading head bumps, telekinesis and a very long list of other schools of explaining physical reality when faced by emperical contridictions? The below seems always, and is diagnostic of, a last ditch attempt to hold onto long held beliefs whose empirical support has fallen away? If the below school of explanation for the failure under listening alone for many beliefs to to be sustained, it must differentiate itself convincingly from esp and other such expressed reasons why their models also fail and which use selfsame kinds of explanations therein. "problem is, they have never verified that the tests themselves don't throw the user into a different evaluative mode whereby the ear-brain construct that turns sound into hearing musice doesn't lose track of what is going on (in other words, loose a musical frame of reference as one would have when doing ordinary evaluative testing.) The objectivists simply ignore thisinconvenient fact, and instead insist that since this type of testing is used in other fields and in audiometric measurement (simple two-dimensional signal testing), it has been proven. Look at it this way: 1) Everybody who thinks amps or cd players sound somewhat different is wrong and suffering from bias and delusion, or " |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: The *way* that objectivists determine their is no difference is through double-blind a-b (preference) or a-b-x (difference) testing. The only problem is, they have never verified that the tests themselves don't throw the user into a different evaluative mode whereby the ear-brain construct that turns sound into hearing musice doesn't lose track of what is going on (in other words, loose a musical frame of reference as one would have when doing ordinary evaluative testing.) The objectivists simply ignore this inconvenient fact, and instead insist that since this type of testing is used in other fields and in audiometric measurement (simple two-dimensional signal testing), it has been proven. The inconvenient fact that you don't mention is that if there is no change in signal due to acoustic stimulus at the auditory nerve before it gets to the brain, the 'ear-brain construct' is IRRELEVANT. And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make sense or even "register". When this is raised, it is rather amusing about how you then handwave about 'hearing below threshold,' based on an old paper that no one else has found interesting enough to even try to reproduce the results. In the meantime, the evidence against your position continues to mount. First, that's an entirely different subject. And the paper is only three years old. And peer reviewed. Nothing has been offered in similarly peer-reviewed rebutal. That hasn't stopped RAHE objectivist handwaving and harrumping. Look at it this way: 1) Everybody who thinks amps or cd players sound somewhat different is wrong and suffering from bias and delusion, or This is distortion of the so-called 'objectivist position' and you know it. I'm sorry, I forot: "or the equipment is defective" or "is being driven in ways inappropriate for its intended use". 2) the chosen testing methodology itself is flawed. Speculation only. Name a serious auditory researcher that takes that position. As far as I (and others of my persuasion can tell, there has never been serious auditory research conducted either in support or against the use of dbt abx'ng (or even a-b'ng) as a testing device *FOR THE OPEN ENDED EVALAUTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS*. (The emphasis is added because you and others often conveniently forget that that is what we subjectivists are talking about....not two dimensional testing of artifacts or signal levels). And since you folks are the ones claiming the test techniques are valid, it is up to you to do the confirming, peer-reviewed testing that shows that it is - *FOR THIS INTENDED PURPOSE*. At this point there is no definitive evidence one way or the other...so move forward but tread with care and don't ignore common sense. Common sense would indicate that claiming that humans can hear below a threshold that has been known and verified countless times since the 19th C is something that should be taken with skepticism. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:OFIbc.173444$1p.2102602@attbi_s54... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AQYac.54944$w54.339056@attbi_s01... On 31 Mar 2004 17:53:08 GMT, "Oceans 2K" wrote: Each solid-state amplifier has it's own sound when all other aspects are held equal. No, they don't. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt on many, many occasions that all nominally competent amps sound the same, when you don't *know* which one is connected. This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows: +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same load. What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that sound the same) same sound the same'. Nobody has circularly defined nominally competent as you claim. It is yet another strawman argument that you have erected. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Nousaine" wrote
Nominally competent is easy. +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. That's never been a secret. Is it really that easy? It's hard to believe that if I find a $149 Kenwood receiver that meets those criteria, use a high level input so it functions as a power amplifier, it should sound the same as a power amplifier from an established and respected maker, like Parasound or B&K. And if it doesn't the same? Wylie Williams |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Harry Lavo wrote:
And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make sense or even "register". Ignore? Really? There has to be physical registering before the brain can interpet something coming from a sensory mechanism. (in this case, the auditory nerve) It is astonishing that people think there is something mysterious going on here. Nobody seems to disagree about this except some 'high-end' audiophiles that reject scientific theories that contradict their personal opinions. The irony is a delicious example of the human condition. I couldn't agree more that the processing that goes on AFTER the initial detection is something that is little understood and varies greatly from person to person. It is wonderfully fascinating in the extreme. Conflating the two events has not been productive to increasing the knowledge of the latter. In fact, it inhibits it. Do you really want to go back when humans contemplated if it was their hand or the fire that caused pain when one got burned? |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
On 5 Apr 2004 22:59:57 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote: "Nousaine" wrote Nominally competent is easy. +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. That's never been a secret. Is it really that easy? It's hard to believe that if I find a $149 Kenwood receiver that meets those criteria, use a high level input so it functions as a power amplifier, it should sound the same as a power amplifier from an established and respected maker, like Parasound or B&K. You might also have to look at HF IMD or switching distortion, but otherwise, yes. One of the best amps I ever came across was the Yamaha AX-570, which cost around $400 in the mid-90s. For lower levels or easier speaker loads, your $149 Kenwood might well be just fine. And if it doesn't the same? Then there will be an easily measurable problem. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Bob, no didn't measure... just assuming due to what I described as an
audible bump in mid-bass. We ARE talking about a $300 2-ch receiver here. I guess when I picture the objectivist POV really being bullet-proof is say a Krell vs a Bryston -or- B&K vs NAD. You know, comparing apples to apples. I've always been under the impression that as price goes down so does sonic integrity (w/ref to flat FR). At $300 Onkyo may have had to make some concessions in the frequency response arena. To appeal to it's end-users (Circuit City and BestBuy showroom shoppers) it boosted at 150Hz and say 14Khz. (no, i dont have that hokey lo-fi loudness button engaged...ha..ha) Again this is all speculation and I assume that the more respected names in audio do not design to this skewed std. As for lousy engineering, I agree. I see it all day as an EE. Sometimes I wonder: What was company/designer X thinking ? From the front lines I can confidently say: money talks and quality design engineering walks. "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:3B2cc.70613$gA5.858284@attbi_s03... Oceans 2K wrote: OK, I am starting to see your POV. But I will respectfully agree to disagree. Fair enough, though hardly in the spirit of the proceedings! ;-) I remember many articles on this topic back when AUDIO Magazine was around. ( I read that mag cover to cover every month! Sad to see it go years back.) I notice one of the conditions of the "test" is flat freq response in human audio spectrum (20hz-20Khz). Most of the mid-fi components I swear sound different...do. But that is because the output signal has some bumps and dips at specific frequencies. That Onkyo I spoke of had a definite bump at about 150Hz causing my normally flat NHT 2.5i's to give a James Taylor concert some West Coast rap-like boom. That's what my wife noticed. Really? You actually measured this? I'm not a measurer, myself, but people who are tell me that most name-brand SS amps are pretty much ruler-flat these days. They'd certainly be flatter than any speaker, including that NHT. (That's no knock on a fine speaker, by the way.) So I see the objectivist's point. Esp the psychological aspect. My only hang up is: don't most amplifier designers put a sonic signature (aka: bumps and dips in freq resp) on their designs? This would explain the glaring differences when I inserted my brother's Adcom 545 into my normal Carver TFM-15 setup. Well, you'd have to measure both of them to know for sure. As for sonic signatures, I'm sure some do. Others just do a lousy job of engineering, and get one as a matter of course. But producing an amp with flat FR is not rocket science (just audio science), and you really have to wonder why anyone would do otherwise. If you want sonic signatures like that, you should buy a flat amp and an equalizer, and roll your own. Excellent debate. You ARE new here. ;-) bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar Â- FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
wrote in message
news:rlmcc.194050$Cb.1738020@attbi_s51... Harry Lavo wrote: And you ignore the fact that the brains auditory processing is not simple physical registering, but also pattern matching and the ability to make sense out of things that in and of themselves, in isolation, may not make sense or even "register". Ignore? Really? There has to be physical registering before the brain can interpet something coming from a sensory mechanism. (in this case, the auditory nerve) It is astonishing that people think there is something mysterious going on here. Nobody seems to disagree about this except some 'high-end' audiophiles that reject scientific theories that contradict their personal opinions. The irony is a delicious example of the human condition. I couldn't agree more that the processing that goes on AFTER the initial detection is something that is little understood and varies greatly from person to person. It is wonderfully fascinating in the extreme. Conflating the two events has not been productive to increasing the knowledge of the latter. In fact, it inhibits it. Do you really want to go back when humans contemplated if it was their hand or the fire that caused pain when one got burned? We hear small signals below the noise floor. What makes you think that a certain "pattern" in the audible spectrum may not cause the brain to look for (direct) the ear to find/fill in missing parts of the pattern that it might not respond to as a pure two-dimensional signal. You don't know. Neither do I. But it is certainly not beyond the capability of the brain, as complex as it clearly is. So until you can show affirmatively that when used to evaluate components in open ended listening, blind abx difference testing or blind a-b comparison testing leaves audio evaluation intact, there are those of us who will continue to suspect the test. It's that simple. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Bob Marcus wrote:
Really? You actually measured this? I'm not a measurer, myself, but people who are tell me that most name-brand SS amps are pretty much ruler-flat these days. They'd certainly be flatter than any speaker, including that NHT. (That's no knock on a fine speaker, by the way.) Well, they are flat until they get hot, of course. Some good sounding amplifiers become so-so when they get stressed or are run for more than an hour or two at a time. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:rnicc.78740$w54.443873@attbi_s01...
This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows: +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same load. Nonsense. Rise time? TIM? Measurements of sine waves tell luttle if anything about how an amp handles signals. What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that sound the same) same sound the same'. Nobody has circularly defined nominally competent as you claim. It is yet another strawman argument that you have erected. You have said 'all competent amps sound the same'. If one amp does not, would you not define it as 'non-competent'? I brought up before the case of the Sony TA-N88B that my friend heard with me 17 years ago, and he was quite able to hear its distinct clarity. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Harry Lavo wrote:
We hear small signals below the noise floor. That is well known. But if the noise itself is below threshold, anything below it will also be inaudible. Why is this so difficult to understand? What makes you think that a certain "pattern" in the audible spectrum may not cause the brain to look for (direct) the ear to find/fill in missing parts of the pattern that it might not respond to as a pure two-dimensional signal. Why on earth do you think that I don't? OF COURSE the brain does that!!! Isn't that how melodic and chord progressions 'work?' What the brain doesn't do is respond to signals from the auditory nerve that aren't happening! So until you can show affirmatively that when used to evaluate components in open ended listening, blind abx difference testing or blind a-b comparison testing leaves audio evaluation intact, there are those of us who will continue to suspect the test. It's that simple. I have vestages of suspect about the test too. So what? Absolute certainty isn't the issue, unlike mathematics. The point is that the weight of evidence does not support that the test does not work. It is not a matter of absolute proof, but of probability, just lke everything else in matters scientific. You are free to reject the evidence for the sake of your own personal pleasure, people do that all the time, including myself. But, to argue that we can 'hear below threshold' simply isn't credible in the modern world. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
Linear Mode
