@SY
If you remember, that was THE toy of the day. Some integrated amps (e.g. Accuphase) actually gave you an output impedance selector, choosing between three values, damping factor of 66, 16 (?) and 6. And they were not the ony ones.
Think back a bit and you might remember Nige writing about it right here some time ago.
@JCX
I do not need to conceed anything, JCX, remember, I'm totally stoned with H/K's logic, and they think an amp should be able to drive a shoe box if you choose to call it a speaker. In addition to that, if you want wide bandwidth with very low global NFB, H/K are your people.
And, on basis of their products I own, I can attest to the fact that most of them really don't give a hoot what they are driving, although of course, the more expensive ones do it tha bit better.
Point is, JCX, what you think of as conceeding is the norm to me. So yes, I do agree, obviously. Please note that H/K amps do not boast of wild damping factor claims, in fact they are sort of mundane in the eyes of the dedicated damping factor fants, number like 40 or 50 or 60 at best. Working backwards, for what it's worth, their open loop damping factor is always above 10:1, typically 15:1 into 8 Ohms, the rest is from their use of 12 to 26 dB of global NFB. Yet, their nominally 85/130W 8/4 Ohms model 680 from 1999 did deliver over 500 Watts into 2 Ohms in impulses in the lab (IEC standard T = 20 mS).
I referred to this: "Bob didn't have to concern himself about quality capacitors, minimal internal wiring, gold connectors, or any of those things; ..."
If you remember, that was THE toy of the day. Some integrated amps (e.g. Accuphase) actually gave you an output impedance selector, choosing between three values, damping factor of 66, 16 (?) and 6. And they were not the ony ones.
Think back a bit and you might remember Nige writing about it right here some time ago.
@JCX
I do not need to conceed anything, JCX, remember, I'm totally stoned with H/K's logic, and they think an amp should be able to drive a shoe box if you choose to call it a speaker. In addition to that, if you want wide bandwidth with very low global NFB, H/K are your people.
And, on basis of their products I own, I can attest to the fact that most of them really don't give a hoot what they are driving, although of course, the more expensive ones do it tha bit better.
Point is, JCX, what you think of as conceeding is the norm to me. So yes, I do agree, obviously. Please note that H/K amps do not boast of wild damping factor claims, in fact they are sort of mundane in the eyes of the dedicated damping factor fants, number like 40 or 50 or 60 at best. Working backwards, for what it's worth, their open loop damping factor is always above 10:1, typically 15:1 into 8 Ohms, the rest is from their use of 12 to 26 dB of global NFB. Yet, their nominally 85/130W 8/4 Ohms model 680 from 1999 did deliver over 500 Watts into 2 Ohms in impulses in the lab (IEC standard T = 20 mS).
I referred to this: "Bob didn't have to concern himself about quality capacitors, minimal internal wiring, gold connectors, or any of those things; ..."
Last edited:
John trusts those more than he trusts his ears. His privilege.
In any case, reading the Stereophile article, it was not exactly clear what Bob did when he was alone. Since people's ears are not terribly sensitive to distortion, but are EXTREMELY sensitive to level and frequency response, and output impedance affects the latter, that's why I suspect that this was the fundamental thing Bob changed.
Fascinating. I must be a very strange individual, I work completely in reverse to that -- distortion artifacts irritate me intensely, most hifi stinks of them. And, fiddling dramatically with FR and level barely registers with me, if the distortion crap has been audibly eliminated ...
Just mentioned on another thread, and entirely appropriate to this conversation, a little bit on those glorious passive components, which can never be a source of problems, 
-- by someone who apparently knows a thing or two about electronics ...
Bruno Putzeys r4 random rants, raves and ramblings
-- by someone who apparently knows a thing or two about electronics ... Bruno Putzeys r4 random rants, raves and ramblings
Last edited:
Not so much, no. Like most audiophiles, you never bother with actual controlled ears-only testing and real experiments. It's very easy to confirm your own beliefs when they are never actually challenged.
Actually, that's exactly how I do my testing, ears only. Of course it doesn't count, because it's not blind - perhaps a bit like a pianist who is trying to assess whether he prefers the sound of the Yamaha, or Steinway grand when he plays -- unless the instruments are covered with all concealing cloths, and are randomly wheeled in and out for him to sample, any decision he comes to is quite meaningless ...
The real dilemma in all this, to get to a very standard of replay and understand what contributes to such a state, is that it is so difficult to achieve in itself that the last thing you think about when you get it is testing whether it's real or not - a bit like being in the company of a beautiful girl, you don't then furtively compare her to any 'ugly' ones that happen to be in the vicinity, just to confirm that your assessment of her appearance was 'correct' ...
An easy way to explain, is to ask yourself, does it sound like the real thing - turn your back to the system, could you be "fooled"? The usual response is No, it sounds like a hifi, of a particular quality: your instincts are giving the game away, the 'unconscious' mind knows that the sound is probably not even in the car park for matching the quality of the live experience - the underlying distortion is sending out signals that what you're hearing is a 'sham'.
So, the criteria I use is how well are the little giveaways that what I'm hearing is 'fake' disguised or masked ...
An easy way to explain, is to ask yourself, does it sound like the real thing - turn your back to the system, could you be "fooled"? The usual response is No, it sounds like a hifi, of a particular quality: your instincts are giving the game away, the 'unconscious' mind knows that the sound is probably not even in the car park for matching the quality of the live experience - the underlying distortion is sending out signals that what you're hearing is a 'sham'.
So, the criteria I use is how well are the little giveaways that what I'm hearing is 'fake' disguised or masked ...
This is continuing on the theme of what one is after, what is possible if the engineering is sufficiently done, in enough areas -- already pulled some comments from this thread:
Rowland M925 monoblock amplifiers -- Break-in Notes - Page 5
Rowland M925 monoblock amplifiers -- Break-in Notes - Page 5
Just mentioned on another thread, and entirely appropriate to this conversation, a little bit on those glorious passive components, which can never be a source of problems,
Bruno Putzeys r4 random rants, raves and ramblings
why do seem to audiophiles think they are being clever with such statements
any EE interested in analog design is going to know you're flogging a strawman
even fails elementary logic - how is it that all those varieties of technology, materials, processing for passive components were developed in the 1st place if "conventional engineers" think nothing but nominal value is needed in passive parts
why would anyone not having read at least Pease, Williams books, articles, app notes think they were analog designers, if interested in audio how about Hofer's "Master Class" – they all have talked more than a little about passives
Last edited:
Because, the 'experts' keep saying that the quality of the typical passive components, etc, found in standard audio gear is always going to be sufficient for the task, will never be the cause for any audible differences. Having spent many years discovering that the "little things" are crucial, I'm not so easy to persuade that it's 'all in my mind'.
When differences are heard, it's typically laid at the feet of those 'terrible' loudspeakers, or inadequate room treatment. Well, sometimes, just sometimes, it might be the inadequate engineering further back in the chain at the heart of the problem ... rather than the easy targets ...
A component that's good enough for the job is fine, so long as every, every component is good enough ...
When differences are heard, it's typically laid at the feet of those 'terrible' loudspeakers, or inadequate room treatment. Well, sometimes, just sometimes, it might be the inadequate engineering further back in the chain at the heart of the problem ... rather than the easy targets ...
A component that's good enough for the job is fine, so long as every, every component is good enough ...
I am surprised that the resistors are as bad as Bruno measured. I have measured quite a few and only the most marginal get that high (carbon composition). Usually they are at least -140 dB and most quality parts are -150 dB plus. The cheap pots are the bad offenders with distortion 30 dB higher than Alps for example.
Small surface mount parts are a special case since the heating and other issues of current concentration can be exacerbated but that's a lot. Vishay has the equipment to test for this and probably still does to meet some military standards. The relay is also not what I would expect but still interesting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.