Pan said:
That there "can be" audible differences in amps is not being contested - something can always be done wrong. That there "can be" and "are" inaudible amps is the question and I contend that all data says that this is true.
The "magnitude" of the errors is a very real issue. If one is looking for a 1% error in an amp and designs a test to hear this 1% error, thats one thing. A highly focused test can get very high resolution. But its ridiculous to obsess about a 1% error in an amp (and I'm NOT talking THD here) when loudspeakers have 20-30% erros by comparison. We need to scale the effects for any of this discussion to make sense. The loudspeaker errors tend not to mask the amp errors so the 1% in the amp can still be detected over the 30% error loudspeaker.
Even when amp differences are found it is a minimal sort of effect, although some forms of crossover distortion found in amps can be quite annoying. But its also quite simple to find an amp that does not change the basic perception of a sound system - which is dominated by the speakers. My system and the results from my reviewers is a strong testiment to this fact. The data is very compelling for those who are open minded enough to "listen".
But this discussion is rambling way off topic and into an area of old old polarization. So I'll bow out.
So John, thanks, I'll enjoy my Turkey. You Canadians (and all) enjoy what it is you do these days, I don't rememebr what that is, but I know that there is some sort of equivalent holiday.
Since I've made a couple of posts an non of them was really on topic I might add this as my take on the question of this thread:
I believe the Orion is a very good speaker thanks to good drivers (frequency-linear, low distortion and good thermal behaviour) AND being a dipole.
Opamps..? Done right they tend to be transparent in blind tests.
IME box speakers can sound about as good but the need for treating the room is bigger than with a dipole.
/Peter
I believe the Orion is a very good speaker thanks to good drivers (frequency-linear, low distortion and good thermal behaviour) AND being a dipole.
Opamps..? Done right they tend to be transparent in blind tests.
IME box speakers can sound about as good but the need for treating the room is bigger than with a dipole.
/Peter
gedlee said:
I agree with Earl here. Valid studies support the "amps are amps" statement, with the exception being crossover distortion. And yes, we have once again gotten back to the least common denominator in audio - the very real lack of hard evidence for most of what we are claiming. Like I said, without hard evidence to back up our claims, they really are just claims. When someone produces real data, then our discussions might start progressing again....
cuibono said:
I'll see what I can find. LTS has performed extremly rigorous blind level matched listening tests for decades on various audio gear. I don't know how many but I think hundreds of amps have been tested and only one have passed the test.
The tests (when possible) are performed as bypass or Before/After tests at various levels and with dummy loads mimicing a real loudspeaker load.
I have mentioned this before on diyaudio and the only amp that has passed is the Bryston modell mentioned above. However it was only after LTS suggested a modification to a stock model it became transparent. Bryston confirmed LTS findings after being informed and now all those amps are changed.
There are very few components that pass the test. Most gear colors the signal audibly. But as mentioned, these tests are very strict and errors that are spotted may never be heard on a typical stereo rig on typical program material by the average listener.
/Peter
We watch the canucks vs flames and drink beer, it IS a national holiday
I will make one last post on this topic: Forget completely about what the engineer/mastering guy heard. The liner notes say "recorded at abbey road studios" not "recorded at abbey road studios and mixed on soffit mounted tannoys in a room where the first reflection was x ms, the rt60 was y, and the engineer had above normal hearing loss at 2.5kHz, 7Kz, and everything over 12kHz from all the bands he was in as a young man". We are neither psychics that can know what the Engineer heard nor emperors that can decree how he should have heard it. There is no way to be accurate to something you have no information about, so lets stop pretending that hearing it like the engineer is a desirable or even possible goal.
We have only one known absolute available to us, this cd has two channels of information on it. Making a reproduction chain that gets those two streams accurately reproduced into the room is the limit of what we can do with "accuracy". Everything after that (room treatment etc) is fair game because we will never know how the various rooms used in the production looked and even if we did we don't have the means to alter our listening environment and hearing to match each new album we put on.
Accuracy ≠ Hearing it like the Engineer did. I rest my case.
I will make one last post on this topic: Forget completely about what the engineer/mastering guy heard. The liner notes say "recorded at abbey road studios" not "recorded at abbey road studios and mixed on soffit mounted tannoys in a room where the first reflection was x ms, the rt60 was y, and the engineer had above normal hearing loss at 2.5kHz, 7Kz, and everything over 12kHz from all the bands he was in as a young man". We are neither psychics that can know what the Engineer heard nor emperors that can decree how he should have heard it. There is no way to be accurate to something you have no information about, so lets stop pretending that hearing it like the engineer is a desirable or even possible goal.
We have only one known absolute available to us, this cd has two channels of information on it. Making a reproduction chain that gets those two streams accurately reproduced into the room is the limit of what we can do with "accuracy". Everything after that (room treatment etc) is fair game because we will never know how the various rooms used in the production looked and even if we did we don't have the means to alter our listening environment and hearing to match each new album we put on.
Accuracy ≠ Hearing it like the Engineer did. I rest my case.
In a blind comparison, I, along with a friend, were able to tell the difference between different amps by the same manufacturer (no names!). Noticed most was transient capability and detail retrieval.
Physical differences not only included power ratings, but type of power transistors used, circuit board topolgy, and the greatest correlation with preference, the nature of the power supply and whether it was regulated.
I am therefore sceptical about "amps are amps" (ask Lynn Olson if he can hear differences between amps!). And if I am not mistaken, there will be many , not just me, who will include this ability to discriminate to include the source: CD players, record players, whatever). My wife could walk into a room while I was playing one of three very competent CD players I was testing recently, and could immediately tell which one was playing... and had a preference.
I know Toole has shown a large sample size correlation of preference for speakers with smoothness and extension of on-axis speaker response, amongst other parameters he has tested for.
Has anyone done very large sample size tests to independently separate all the variables that diffentiate the qualtitive differences between OB and closed box speakers (at least over the midrange)?
I know Earl you mentioned somewhere the interest in trying an OB midrange, with the desirability of DSP. Why the interest? Many people here are already using DSP of one sort or another. So, a la Toole, smothness and extension of on-axis Freq response might be able to be eliminiated as a variable.
This obviously leaves off-axis response, and diffraction as likely culprits (as well as back radiation- which can be adjusted). Difficult to elimate variables in that scenario, or has rigourous work with double blind studies of very large sample sizes been done in that area?
What about maintaing size and configuration of the room (especially at mid freqs to eliminate low freq anomalies)?
What I am getting at, is that there are obviously two different camps talking around each other. One against "boxiness", whatever that might mean, and those in favour of "accuracy", whatever that might mean.
I would be grateful if I could be directed to large sample size, double blind studies that seek to elucidate what it is about listeners' sound/imaging/music e.t.c preferences between OB and monopole (especially midrange).
With thanks,
David
Physical differences not only included power ratings, but type of power transistors used, circuit board topolgy, and the greatest correlation with preference, the nature of the power supply and whether it was regulated.
I am therefore sceptical about "amps are amps" (ask Lynn Olson if he can hear differences between amps!). And if I am not mistaken, there will be many , not just me, who will include this ability to discriminate to include the source: CD players, record players, whatever). My wife could walk into a room while I was playing one of three very competent CD players I was testing recently, and could immediately tell which one was playing... and had a preference.
I know Toole has shown a large sample size correlation of preference for speakers with smoothness and extension of on-axis speaker response, amongst other parameters he has tested for.
Has anyone done very large sample size tests to independently separate all the variables that diffentiate the qualtitive differences between OB and closed box speakers (at least over the midrange)?
I know Earl you mentioned somewhere the interest in trying an OB midrange, with the desirability of DSP. Why the interest? Many people here are already using DSP of one sort or another. So, a la Toole, smothness and extension of on-axis Freq response might be able to be eliminiated as a variable.
This obviously leaves off-axis response, and diffraction as likely culprits (as well as back radiation- which can be adjusted). Difficult to elimate variables in that scenario, or has rigourous work with double blind studies of very large sample sizes been done in that area?
What about maintaing size and configuration of the room (especially at mid freqs to eliminate low freq anomalies)?
What I am getting at, is that there are obviously two different camps talking around each other. One against "boxiness", whatever that might mean, and those in favour of "accuracy", whatever that might mean.
I would be grateful if I could be directed to large sample size, double blind studies that seek to elucidate what it is about listeners' sound/imaging/music e.t.c preferences between OB and monopole (especially midrange).
With thanks,
David
Re: Re: Re: new thread?
What I am trying to do is to enjoy the already produced stereo CDs so that I do not have to sit at a sweet spot while I work. Some additional ambience is needed for that - be-it lower direct/reflected ratio, omnidirectional speakers, etc.
The debate starts to get interesting, even if it is in a wrong thread...I get some ideas from it.
Dr. Geddes, you have your points and I am beginning to understand them. The misunderstanding comes from different targets we have. But I must disagree on amps are amps - I can tell a tube amp from a ss amp any time. Lower damping factor makes a difference - that is a measurable quantity. Therefore sometimes amp and speaker can work together better than other pair...
markus76 said:
What I am trying to do is to enjoy the already produced stereo CDs so that I do not have to sit at a sweet spot while I work. Some additional ambience is needed for that - be-it lower direct/reflected ratio, omnidirectional speakers, etc.
The debate starts to get interesting, even if it is in a wrong thread...I get some ideas from it.
Dr. Geddes, you have your points and I am beginning to understand them. The misunderstanding comes from different targets we have. But I must disagree on amps are amps - I can tell a tube amp from a ss amp any time. Lower damping factor makes a difference - that is a measurable quantity. Therefore sometimes amp and speaker can work together better than other pair...
markus76 said:
That seems to be the exact issue here. Accurately reproducing the recording (Summa) vs. accurately reproducing the original event (Orion).
Mr. Schmitt had been pursuing the first path, until he found out that it did not automatically lead him to the second, which was his goal (and probably is Dr. Geddes's as well). So Mr. Schmitt chose a third way, investing less time into the pursuit of absolute accuracy, and more time into pleasant sound.
gedlee said:
A lucid and informative post. This man knows what he is talking about.
When you find the right speakers for your room, put them in the right place and you like their presentation, swapping between good amps does nothing significant to the sound, it will still sound truly wonderful.
All this applies to boxes, OBs and horns, or what ever. I believe that if the amp makes or breaks a system there is something wrong with the amp, the speakers or their position, or the room itself, in a word the system is unbalanced.
With such a system a so called audiophile amp may through it's own imbalance partially correct the system and sound much better. But resulting sound is not due to the amp's superiority but rather to it's faults.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.