I dont know, I was asking because I lost sight a while ago.
Haha, not really. Yeah that is one thing I've been trying to point, actually no, that is what I'm saying, its just broader than I was thinking. Yeah science is yet to develop a way to accuratly evaluate our listening to music, so to make judgements on the performance of a piece of equipment solely based on quantitative evaluations may be a flawed method, it seems at least incomplete.
I believe that the many posts and letters to the editor of Stereophile and TAS about the need to stray from subjective reviews and only use, or even partly use double blind or ABX or whatever methods is really flawed, its a myth, imo, that this is a good method to evaluate stereo equipment. A lot of those suggesting its use really don't know anything about the method and are just restating something they read from a scientist who does use and understand it, or, god forbid, average joe with many years experience with audio but none of which is in the social sciences or methods field of science, yet become willing to do something like, say, wager 10,000 dollars nobody can distinquish any amplifier in a double blind test.
This hasn't really been studied, so I will preface this statement as a very subjective observation. In my experience, very few open minded fellows who are willing to look at both objective measurable evaluations and subjective experiential evaluations of equipment have ever listened to something that measures poorly but sounds great-to some, and walked away saying, I can hear those horrible measurements cleary. Instead what I tend to see is arguements that though it may sound good, it must be because of euphonic problems in the amplifier that, though pleasing to listen to, stray from reality. While others listen to some great sounding amps and say, hey I understand it measures great but it sounds dry, lifeless, etc. I'm not saying I fall into either category, my point here is that there is something to this, and that the common experience suggests that we may be missing some important measurement techniques. It seems that those willing to embrace both objective and subjective evaluations conclude that what sounds good doesn't always measure good, and what measures good doesn't always sound good.
My own experience is that there is no perfect product, and that its really about finding that balance of good and bad that you can live with. I've heard very highend expensive Krell and Mark Levinson systems with very expensive speakers from Krell and Revel. They sounded great, I loved it, yet at the same time, they didn't seem perfect, they didn't seem real, they just did certain things very well. Things that matter in music, but aren't all that matter. Then I listen to things like High end Tube amps from Cary or my own Meixing, and find that it does some things very wrong, has some problems the Krell stuff clearly doesn't, yet gets something else more right. That thing is not quantifiable as of yet, though I would like to find a way to quantify it. For instance, we have no real way of measuring a soundstage, yet to me amplifiers clearly soundstage differently, and more obviously, speakers definatly soundstage different from each other. Some speakers that measure very poorly, Theils for instance, soundstage amazingly. Quads are another example of a speaker that doesn't measure great but doesn't certain things really great, things that are hard if even possible, at the moment, to measure. I don't fall into the camp that wires, power cables, supports, etc make huge differences and are as valuable as a major component replacement in a stereo. I also don't buy that they have no affect, and find that I can hear suttle but real differences between cables, power cords, stands, etc. I've never been able to tell the difference between a cd player on spikes vs on rubber feet, sorry guys. However, speakers, absolutely. Turntables, definatly. I also couldn't hear a difference between wall outlets, but I used better ones anyway, partly because I already bought them, and partly because they do hold the plug in better.
Haha, not really. Yeah that is one thing I've been trying to point, actually no, that is what I'm saying, its just broader than I was thinking. Yeah science is yet to develop a way to accuratly evaluate our listening to music, so to make judgements on the performance of a piece of equipment solely based on quantitative evaluations may be a flawed method, it seems at least incomplete.
I believe that the many posts and letters to the editor of Stereophile and TAS about the need to stray from subjective reviews and only use, or even partly use double blind or ABX or whatever methods is really flawed, its a myth, imo, that this is a good method to evaluate stereo equipment. A lot of those suggesting its use really don't know anything about the method and are just restating something they read from a scientist who does use and understand it, or, god forbid, average joe with many years experience with audio but none of which is in the social sciences or methods field of science, yet become willing to do something like, say, wager 10,000 dollars nobody can distinquish any amplifier in a double blind test.
This hasn't really been studied, so I will preface this statement as a very subjective observation. In my experience, very few open minded fellows who are willing to look at both objective measurable evaluations and subjective experiential evaluations of equipment have ever listened to something that measures poorly but sounds great-to some, and walked away saying, I can hear those horrible measurements cleary. Instead what I tend to see is arguements that though it may sound good, it must be because of euphonic problems in the amplifier that, though pleasing to listen to, stray from reality. While others listen to some great sounding amps and say, hey I understand it measures great but it sounds dry, lifeless, etc. I'm not saying I fall into either category, my point here is that there is something to this, and that the common experience suggests that we may be missing some important measurement techniques. It seems that those willing to embrace both objective and subjective evaluations conclude that what sounds good doesn't always measure good, and what measures good doesn't always sound good.
My own experience is that there is no perfect product, and that its really about finding that balance of good and bad that you can live with. I've heard very highend expensive Krell and Mark Levinson systems with very expensive speakers from Krell and Revel. They sounded great, I loved it, yet at the same time, they didn't seem perfect, they didn't seem real, they just did certain things very well. Things that matter in music, but aren't all that matter. Then I listen to things like High end Tube amps from Cary or my own Meixing, and find that it does some things very wrong, has some problems the Krell stuff clearly doesn't, yet gets something else more right. That thing is not quantifiable as of yet, though I would like to find a way to quantify it. For instance, we have no real way of measuring a soundstage, yet to me amplifiers clearly soundstage differently, and more obviously, speakers definatly soundstage different from each other. Some speakers that measure very poorly, Theils for instance, soundstage amazingly. Quads are another example of a speaker that doesn't measure great but doesn't certain things really great, things that are hard if even possible, at the moment, to measure. I don't fall into the camp that wires, power cables, supports, etc make huge differences and are as valuable as a major component replacement in a stereo. I also don't buy that they have no affect, and find that I can hear suttle but real differences between cables, power cords, stands, etc. I've never been able to tell the difference between a cd player on spikes vs on rubber feet, sorry guys. However, speakers, absolutely. Turntables, definatly. I also couldn't hear a difference between wall outlets, but I used better ones anyway, partly because I already bought them, and partly because they do hold the plug in better.
in theory, all that matters is linear and nonlinear distortion, and these measurements would tell all that there is to know about the given audio equipment. the problem is that neither of these has ever been correctly measured. i will point you guys to the harmon kardon white papers. a lot of the speculation here has already been answered in the latest research articles in the various engineering journals.
just because we can't explain something doesn't mean differences don't exist. and i'm talking beyond cables and power cords. i'm talking about the most bizarre audiophile "snake oil" like putting a stone on top of your amplifier. any electrical engineer would think that's total bull, but my theoretical physicist friends were far more open-minded about this. and sure enough, there was an audible difference. later on Mundorf showed that the reason was that microvibrations caused significant distortion in the inductors used inside the amplifier (we used a Tripath for our listening tests) and the stone added mass to reduce such vibrations. hey wasn't there a guy who offered a million dollars to anyone who could tell the difference in a blind test? i would happily sign up for such a test and feel pity for that person.
there are myths, and then there are myths of "myths"
just because we can't explain something doesn't mean differences don't exist. and i'm talking beyond cables and power cords. i'm talking about the most bizarre audiophile "snake oil" like putting a stone on top of your amplifier. any electrical engineer would think that's total bull, but my theoretical physicist friends were far more open-minded about this. and sure enough, there was an audible difference. later on Mundorf showed that the reason was that microvibrations caused significant distortion in the inductors used inside the amplifier (we used a Tripath for our listening tests) and the stone added mass to reduce such vibrations. hey wasn't there a guy who offered a million dollars to anyone who could tell the difference in a blind test? i would happily sign up for such a test and feel pity for that person.
there are myths, and then there are myths of "myths"
are you talking about SET amps period, or that challenge? I'm a little confused by that comment.
So you don't think SET amps do anything right?
I have an Acurus A200 solidstate currently hooked up and sitting next to my Meixing 805 SET amp, and honostly, in most of the range, they sound somewhat similar. This 805 amp has always suprised me with its deep tight bass, given the range of my speakers, quiet backgrounds, and overall accurate presentation. However, comparing the two, clearly the A200 is quieter, and though I don't remember the specs of the A200, the Meixing is in the 85-90 decible range S/N. None the less, just going with the elusive unmeasurable sound stage, to me the soundstage is much deeper, wider, and better placed than with the A200 which is very flat sounding.
I also have a chip amp which doesnt compare, IMO, to these other amps. It has the worst S/N ratio of the group, but I'm still chasing down the hum. It has the hardest sound overall, especially durring dynamic peeks. Though I think that is a common complaint of the chipamp is what it sonds like when driven hard. It also has a very flat soundstage compared with the tube amp, but on par with the A200.
So you don't think SET amps do anything right?
I have an Acurus A200 solidstate currently hooked up and sitting next to my Meixing 805 SET amp, and honostly, in most of the range, they sound somewhat similar. This 805 amp has always suprised me with its deep tight bass, given the range of my speakers, quiet backgrounds, and overall accurate presentation. However, comparing the two, clearly the A200 is quieter, and though I don't remember the specs of the A200, the Meixing is in the 85-90 decible range S/N. None the less, just going with the elusive unmeasurable sound stage, to me the soundstage is much deeper, wider, and better placed than with the A200 which is very flat sounding.
I also have a chip amp which doesnt compare, IMO, to these other amps. It has the worst S/N ratio of the group, but I'm still chasing down the hum. It has the hardest sound overall, especially durring dynamic peeks. Though I think that is a common complaint of the chipamp is what it sonds like when driven hard. It also has a very flat soundstage compared with the tube amp, but on par with the A200.
I don't hear many differentiate between SE and class A when speaking proactively about them. A SET amp engages the load consistently throughout the cycle due to it being in class A.
A push-pull amp is quite capable of doing the same thing. It is an assumption that a push pull amp will necessarily run in class B. Some musings on the web give the feeling that anyone who builds a push pull amp must be doing so to get higher power.
A push-pull amp is quite capable of doing the same thing. It is an assumption that a push pull amp will necessarily run in class B. Some musings on the web give the feeling that anyone who builds a push pull amp must be doing so to get higher power.
Subjective vs. objective myths
here's a myth worth exploring...
subjectively evaluated high priced exotica (amps/wires/speakers/whatever)
is by default and faith, better than more modestly priced (but well engineered) objectively evaluated (DBT/ABX/etc.) equipment.
I talked with John Dunlavy at his (now defunct) plant in Colorado Springs back in 2001 about just this problem... (his speakers were by no means cheap, but they were exquisitely built and measured exhaustively, both subjectively and objectively)... he liked to demonstrate the falacy of live vs. reproduced using a grand piano and some of his speakers, with a panel judging which they were listening to. In a carefully setup demo, usually, no difference could be statistically determined, even after long listening periods to either/or.
So why is it, there aren't more subjective studies of crappy mass market rca/walmart/symphonic systems that show they're superiority to the Krells/Apogees/Wilson Audio/Electrocompaniet/ad nauseum high priced space heaters marketed for 20 grand and more?
So the myth being, I guess, if it costs more and is more "exclusive" and has some mystical unmeasurable quantities that only a select few can hear, much less define, it must be better? Not from my 40+ years experience and building. I've learned alot from diyaudio and other online resources, but it's been from fundamental application and understanding of science and engineering from those willing to teach; not from the metaphysical gurus espousing "skin effects", "single crystal grain oriented cryotreated gobbledygook"
Of course, ymmv... good luck!!
and good listening!!!
Oh.. the other part of the myth being if it costs (alot) more, the parts it's made from are obviously better (it's usually not so, often the same tubes/resistors/caps/raw drivers) purchased for less than 1/1000th the final selling price.
here's a myth worth exploring...
subjectively evaluated high priced exotica (amps/wires/speakers/whatever)
is by default and faith, better than more modestly priced (but well engineered) objectively evaluated (DBT/ABX/etc.) equipment.
I talked with John Dunlavy at his (now defunct) plant in Colorado Springs back in 2001 about just this problem... (his speakers were by no means cheap, but they were exquisitely built and measured exhaustively, both subjectively and objectively)... he liked to demonstrate the falacy of live vs. reproduced using a grand piano and some of his speakers, with a panel judging which they were listening to. In a carefully setup demo, usually, no difference could be statistically determined, even after long listening periods to either/or.
So why is it, there aren't more subjective studies of crappy mass market rca/walmart/symphonic systems that show they're superiority to the Krells/Apogees/Wilson Audio/Electrocompaniet/ad nauseum high priced space heaters marketed for 20 grand and more?
So the myth being, I guess, if it costs more and is more "exclusive" and has some mystical unmeasurable quantities that only a select few can hear, much less define, it must be better? Not from my 40+ years experience and building. I've learned alot from diyaudio and other online resources, but it's been from fundamental application and understanding of science and engineering from those willing to teach; not from the metaphysical gurus espousing "skin effects", "single crystal grain oriented cryotreated gobbledygook"
Of course, ymmv... good luck!!
and good listening!!!Oh.. the other part of the myth being if it costs (alot) more, the parts it's made from are obviously better (it's usually not so, often the same tubes/resistors/caps/raw drivers) purchased for less than 1/1000th the final selling price.
lndm said:
True. The telefunken V 69 is rated 25W in Class A. (It's probably closer to 30W.) It plays as loud as the McIntosh MC75 and Marantz Model 9 rated at 75 and 70 W in Class A/B.
Now somebody might say it's unfair to compare a quality amp with the likes of McIntosh and Marantz. But the Leak Stereo 60 is rated at 2x30W (or +30W) in Class A/B. You get 30W in Class A from a pair EL34s.
So why A/B?
That takes us to another myth.
PP has lower distortion than SE. Only if we count 2nd harmonic distortion. Why would anyone want to do that?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.