One of the reasons for always quoting THD figures is, I think, the simple fact that the audio industry has spent billions since 1970 in brainwashing the public into believing that it is the most important thing out there.
In the late 70ies, the spec war caused Sansui and Kenwood in particular (but others as well) to wage a war in their slew rates - that was the "in" thing in those days. But today? I can't even remember when I saw that spec on a brand new device last. I'm sure some still do, but they are rare nowadays.
How many manufacturers do you know which will say: "square wave tilt at 20 kHz is less than ..."?
Ultimately Pavel it's about recognition. Your average buyer would not know how to interpret the specs anyway, and he's been weaned on THD and IM specs.
Frank, palyback capability and signal content are two very different things.
I never disputed the claim that many, or even most, CD players will mess up the job of replaying a particular CD, leaveing the listener to think that it's a poor recoding, until a well made player demonstrates that it's not.
Nevertheless, I do dispute the idea that this is a very common problem with most CDs. I believe most are made rather poorly in terms of recording and engineering, and if so, suddenly discovering that one player makes them sound good will cause to investigate that player. I do not find it possible for everyone to get it wrong, including models which are known to be very good with other recordings, and just that odd one to be The Truth itself.
I think you much overestimate our abilities to improve a product, even though I don't dispute the idea that this is quite possible. Take any 1990ies Philips or Marantz CD player, replace its NJR op amps with OPA 275 and you will instantly. in that one step, gain surprisingly much. I can't even remember the number of times I did for friends, and it worked every time without fail. The only odd thing is that this works best with ONLY that particuler op amp, and the Lord knows I tried a lot of them (but hardly all of them).
Yet, although their sound improved quite a bit, what was a poor recording was still a poor recording, only now you could hear better just how poor it was compared to others, much better made recordings.
This is a downright insult to the scientists working in audio.Richard, I put it down mainly to laziness. The "scientific community" can't be bothered getting off their backsides and doing some decent research - far easier to toss off a few cites, that of course should end the matter ...
And its using similar argumentation creationist/bigfoot researchers/ufologist/crop circle freaks/free energy guru's etc use to say science is close minded. And yes science is close minded when it comes to ********, as it should be.
Come up with good arguments then progress can be made.
AFAIK, only aerogel in some of its many guises came close to immitating paper cones. A bit like saying "kevlar", which also has numerous variations for various needs.
On esigners in general - there is a popular myth n the "golden eared" audio community that the designers are all but ignoramuses. I have always strongly objected to this notion, which is downright stupid and insulting to me. My usual answer to that is something like:
"You think so? Fine, the stage is yours, bow to the audience and start producing a better one."
Tattoo, it's a fact that the scientific community much prefers theoretical discussion to concrete deeds.
Extremes usually never really work, and it goes both ways. It's also true that there are far too many self proclaimed "golden ears" who advocate doing it all by ears only, with the obvious assumption that their ears are the only true to life ears.
Which is why, to my mind, we need both sides.
Go ahead, ask anyone here who has actually built something that works well, could they have done it without learning a lot of theory and then applying it with a lot of listening thrown in.
Not really. If someone is totally and blissfully unaware of the literature, has never actually designed and built anything, has never done actual experiments, has never done any actual listening tests, and has no particular knowledge or competence in electronics, there's no insult at all. It's just word salad.
It's not products that improve the sound, it's system engineering and optimising, removing subtle flaws which highlight "flaws" in recordings - many high end products are tweaked in such ways that "audiophile" recordings come across very impressively, and fall down badly with conventional recordings. I recall an instance of an end of year, super system being assembled - easily $1/2 mill. worth of kit - for a demo - they put on a modern, all-in percussion showpiece, very spectacular! Then, I asked for a classic Sinatra CD to be played - oh, dear!! Flat, 2D, zero life, this was midfi sound - the system had the ability to dramatically exaggerate, it would be a nightmare to live with.
The Truth is, that all recordings can come across as well worth listening to - and that's my number one priority. A car that makes you aware of precisely how rough the road surface is, is not a good car, in my book ...
Hmmm ... let's see now - ah-ha ...
Since it's 'solved', all the amplifiers I have heard over the last decades that display problems, came about because the manufacturers hired incompetent engineers, it appears. Therefore, it seems we need a list of companies that use competent designers, and another of those who don't ...
Last edited:
And, for some more perspective - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-112.html#post2869200.
Actually, I believe the problem has been solved, it's just sloppiness and a lack of interest by many of the participants, in refining their understanding of what's critical, and what's of lesser importance - if enough of the boxes are ticked then the standard of sound is indeed excellent.
Actually, I believe the problem has been solved, it's just sloppiness and a lack of interest by many of the participants, in refining their understanding of what's critical, and what's of lesser importance - if enough of the boxes are ticked then the standard of sound is indeed excellent.
Sorry Frank, but the word "all" (recordings) is still completely unacceptable to me. I have never experienced anything anyone ever did to anything that was so encompassing as to merit the blanket statement of "all".
"Well worth listening to" means that they are perhaps not so obejctionable as they used to be, but a muffled recording will always be a muffled recording, the difference can only be in the degree, but not the essence. And if it suddenly sounds wonderful, I suggest your CD player is in Technicolor mode.
The most obvious problem was that the treble quality degraded once a certain volume, well before clipping, was reached - in contrast, some very recent examples of power amplifiers are trouble-free in this respect.
No, attempts were made without success. You need a partner with similar experience and knowledge for such discussion, otherwise you are wasting time and same questions and reasoning return over and over.
Another good point ... - does a 90cc Honda count, 
?
I use the car analogy, because my point is that traversing the road and enjoying what the journey presents in terms of what I see, and the satisfaction of the car always being competent in how it behaves is key - I don't want it to be a hairy experience, where my instincts have to be at razor sharp readiness to deal with the unexpected!
- does a 90cc Honda count, ?I use the car analogy, because my point is that traversing the road and enjoying what the journey presents in terms of what I see, and the satisfaction of the car always being competent in how it behaves is key - I don't want it to be a hairy experience, where my instincts have to be at razor sharp readiness to deal with the unexpected!
When you mentioned "distortion figure", were you referring to amplifier THD??
Low distortion and high quality amplifiers can be built for very cheap money. But speakers? Most if not all of the problem is with the speaker, simply because it is too expensive to make it right. But in general the amp and the speaker should be designed as one system.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.