Pulled this from youtube - fun because they compare diff. amps, both solid state and tube. Hope your computer setups are good - it's a fun ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtMaMq27J8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtMaMq27J8
Last edited:
It's impossible to get a sense of the quality of an amplifier from a recording and next reproduction via PC-speakers.Typical iPhone youth of today misthinking...
/shakes fist and yells, "You kids, get off my lawn!"
Exactly. Don't listen to this on your phone, you'll never figure it out. But, I did get a listen like this on youtube with a different vid using a class a a/b setup and the difference was clear as a bell. I'm sure the mustang is a great amp... but you get a great tube amp up there and there's no mistaking it, even with trying to dial them in to each other.
Okay - before you call baloney, I like the quality of these guys recordings for youtube.
Get your A/B or modified A (recommend chip or fet) and have a listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUxBL7mub0A
It's pretty fun.
Okay - before you call baloney, I like the quality of these guys recordings for youtube.
Get your A/B or modified A (recommend chip or fet) and have a listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUxBL7mub0A
It's pretty fun.
Last edited:
I can't listen to it on my phone, as my phone is just a phone. I could listen to it on my laptop, but I won't. It would be like comparing the performance of two cars by seeing how long each can balance an egg (or a chicken) on the roof, while slowly accelerating. Or comparing the lens quality of two cameras by examining a second-generation photocopy of a dot-matrix print of their output.
As I understand it (a quick Google found this for me) youtube uses 126k AAC coding for sound, but this will normally be a recode of sound sent using AAC. Applying lossy compression twice (even the same lossy compression) is likely to degrade sound. Then we have the problems of recording. Essentially we are being asked to judge the quality of two good parts (the amps) of a total signal path via two flawed transducers (speaker and mikes) in a relatively uncontrolled acoustic space, with two lots of lossy compression applied. The two amps would have to be wildly different (almost to the point of faulty) for any real difference to be heard - and even then we might not know which was faulty.
As I said, don't they teach any science at school any more?
As I understand it (a quick Google found this for me) youtube uses 126k AAC coding for sound, but this will normally be a recode of sound sent using AAC. Applying lossy compression twice (even the same lossy compression) is likely to degrade sound. Then we have the problems of recording. Essentially we are being asked to judge the quality of two good parts (the amps) of a total signal path via two flawed transducers (speaker and mikes) in a relatively uncontrolled acoustic space, with two lots of lossy compression applied. The two amps would have to be wildly different (almost to the point of faulty) for any real difference to be heard - and even then we might not know which was faulty.
As I said, don't they teach any science at school any more?
I can see your point of view, but do not share it because I think you overweight the unknowns. The premise I understand to be presented is that a compressed copy of a recording is unable to capture a majority of the information presented. Said differently in the first person, "an MP3 can only capture so much info, and my crappy digital amp can't play back information that is missing, and does what it can with the info it has, but barely."
By extension, that premise is further utilized to explain that an assumption that reproduction of recorded harmonics and modulation of waveform isn't possible if the intrinsic process of the reproduction is not of the exact same makeup of the original.
If that were the case, then the reason for being an audiophile is moot.
Using the same methodology of analogy with an unrelated medium, I didn't go to the moon, I didn't land on the moon, I don't have the camera that took the photos, and I certainly don't have a chemical developing bath for the negatives they shot. But, I know we went to the moon and the photos show a reasonable facsimile of the event.
Now, as to do with sound and the direct reproduction of it, I spent 10 years of my life as a student of classical and marching music and I could tell you the difference between one french horn and another - and make a guess at what the manufacturer is, and I've only played one horn a majority of the time. So most of the horns I have heard were recorded. And until now, I really haven't understood the difference between amplifiers. So unwittingly, my own experience demonstrates the underlying assumptions presented to be partly exaggerated.
Sometimes because the girth of accumulated knowledge has consumed individuals cognition to the point it blinds them to the effects of their behavior that leads to flawed thinking and actions. While it is common I do not excuse it.
Making a comparison using overblown dynamics to justify a tenuously shaky position without success in an unrelated medium, and then having the sour grapes left over to insult someone you've never met is embarrassing. Whether or not you retract your statement is irrelevant at this point because I know this is a common occurrence for some people's behavior.
Let me be more direct. Perhaps this is more explanatory to your needs:
Sub NewThreadReading();
Set OtherThreadRead = False;
NewThreadReading();
FOR Var(StatementOfOpinion);
IF OtherThreadRead = True
THEN: MoveAlongToNewThread;
ELSEIF:
Var(StatementOfOpinion) = :
NothingKind OR:
NothingHelpful;
THEN:
SET OtherThreadRead = True:
Execute AttitudeAdjustment()
ELSEIF;
Printf Var(StatementOfOpinion);
Regards.
By extension, that premise is further utilized to explain that an assumption that reproduction of recorded harmonics and modulation of waveform isn't possible if the intrinsic process of the reproduction is not of the exact same makeup of the original.
If that were the case, then the reason for being an audiophile is moot.
Using the same methodology of analogy with an unrelated medium, I didn't go to the moon, I didn't land on the moon, I don't have the camera that took the photos, and I certainly don't have a chemical developing bath for the negatives they shot. But, I know we went to the moon and the photos show a reasonable facsimile of the event.
Now, as to do with sound and the direct reproduction of it, I spent 10 years of my life as a student of classical and marching music and I could tell you the difference between one french horn and another - and make a guess at what the manufacturer is, and I've only played one horn a majority of the time. So most of the horns I have heard were recorded. And until now, I really haven't understood the difference between amplifiers. So unwittingly, my own experience demonstrates the underlying assumptions presented to be partly exaggerated.
Sometimes because the girth of accumulated knowledge has consumed individuals cognition to the point it blinds them to the effects of their behavior that leads to flawed thinking and actions. While it is common I do not excuse it.
Making a comparison using overblown dynamics to justify a tenuously shaky position without success in an unrelated medium, and then having the sour grapes left over to insult someone you've never met is embarrassing. Whether or not you retract your statement is irrelevant at this point because I know this is a common occurrence for some people's behavior.
Let me be more direct. Perhaps this is more explanatory to your needs:
Sub NewThreadReading();
Set OtherThreadRead = False;
NewThreadReading();
FOR Var(StatementOfOpinion);
IF OtherThreadRead = True
THEN: MoveAlongToNewThread;
ELSEIF:
Var(StatementOfOpinion) = :
NothingKind OR:
NothingHelpful;
THEN:
SET OtherThreadRead = True:
Execute AttitudeAdjustment()
ELSEIF;
Printf Var(StatementOfOpinion);
Regards.
I agree to a point. If the amp adds 10db at 100hz yould be able to tell on almost any thing, but 2 decent quality amps,I doubt it
It's impossible to get a sense of the quality of an amplifier from a recording and next reproduction via PC-speakers.
Typical assumption that youtube is only viewed on a phone or laptop speakers.
When one's thinking contracts from evaluation of facts, a jab at someone else is fun.
Not ONE person asked a follow up to this for any clarification. I figured respondents to were being light hearted and took it as such.
Perhaps MarkAudio was right about something. I'm sorry to have to consider that idea.
Last edited:
No. Nor basic logic. Science and math "education" has been reduced to learning terms and names rather than principles and means of calculation. I have had my son's teachers furious at me for showing him how amazingly silly his lessons are and then teaching him correctly. He's old enough now to understand why his teachers are ignorant of basic science, which is a great lesson in itself.
If you don't carefully match levels (and in this case, the tone and overdrive settings) and tightly control the mike positions, the sound totally changes, irrespective of the encoding. Trying to measure a paramecium with a wooden ruler will not yield anything useful, regardless of the sincerity of some YouTube guy.
edit: I will admit that they're better players than I am. Also, for DF96's benefit, they are changing speakers as well. This is MI.
Agree without reservation. My son spent the better part of 5th grade completely bored out of his mind because the skills he and I reviewed when he was in 2nd grade have carried him well beyond. His nationally scored and normalized "Grade Level Equivalent" for mathematics is considered to be that of a 10th grader and Reading to be that of a graduate, with a standard deviation of 1% based on 10% range of confidence to be in the 99th national percentile.
While I'd like to say that's great, I worry that the evaluation basis is horrifically undermined.
That being said - this part is OT with relation to the preceding statements intended implication.
Agree the basis of measurement is highly subject to degradation. As well, they also "Tried" to get the mustang to "sound" like the Tremolux.
But, I'd be willing to explore this more... even after I forgot my answers, went back and tried it on just my computer speakers... it just seemed clear (and yeah, I caught it again).
Why do I think I know?
It wasn't the levels, chunkiness or crunchiness... it's the fact that you can hear the granularity of effect running through an analog circuit. The tube sounds the way it does because the "math" is engineered into the circuit and is performed as often as physics allows by the material science. The analog circuit sounds like it runs as if there is water running through it (at the speed of light, no less).
Digital is while constrained by materials is also constrained by the speed of execution of the underlying code governed by a clock. In the end, it sounds like a clock made it. It has a check valve and minimum flow rate in and out.
I wish I could play guitar, without a doubt. Never knew anyone who could really share a good recommendation as to where to start. Most "beginner" instruments are so horrible it's a wonder the arts continue at all. The good ones go on and on. When I left playing music that horn still sold for as much as we paid into it with mods, even after it's 60th year in use.
Last edited:
Here's the funny thing- a week or two ago, I saw a guy who just blew me away with his playing. His guitar: a no-name that was fished out of a dumpster and he repaired it, and rather crudely at that.
Moral: it's the player, not the instrument. My sound sucks because I suck, not because my guitars suck (they're actually pretty good).
Moral: it's the player, not the instrument. My sound sucks because I suck, not because my guitars suck (they're actually pretty good).
No, it's just a troll-catcher. Figure I might as well raise the flag higher, might as well suss them all out.
While my teachers were busy sprouting nonsense in class, a textbook was all I paid attention to and it served well.
However - I doubt Pythagoras or Mr. Faraday had such a luxury. Even Lee de Forest didn't have a book to tell him how to invent the Audion.
While my teachers were busy sprouting nonsense in class, a textbook was all I paid attention to and it served well.
However - I doubt Pythagoras or Mr. Faraday had such a luxury. Even Lee de Forest didn't have a book to tell him how to invent the Audion.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.