And round 'n round 'n round it goes ...
Tell you what ya gotta have, an epiphany is what you need!! 'Till that happens the same ol' grooves will be followed, on and on and on ...
I was lucky that this happened to me looong time ago, so in that sense very fortunate compared to a lot of others, probably. I'm like the winemaker who one year fluked an absolutely brilliant red vintage, won every award in the book, all the time scratching his head as to what exactly he did that was so right; who then keeps making red wine year and year, trying every variation and combination of techniques to work out precisely what are the contributing factors. Some following years are very ordinary, some excellent value for money, some hit the mark quite nicely ...
Meanwhile, everyone else is sampling the normal plonk, and to the infinitessimal degree dissecting the characteristics of one versus the other - something very worthwhile and interesting in itself - but to me certainly not as fascinating as seeing where winemaking taken to the n'th degree can take one ...
Tell you what ya gotta have, an epiphany is what you need!! 'Till that happens the same ol' grooves will be followed, on and on and on ...
I was lucky that this happened to me looong time ago, so in that sense very fortunate compared to a lot of others, probably. I'm like the winemaker who one year fluked an absolutely brilliant red vintage, won every award in the book, all the time scratching his head as to what exactly he did that was so right; who then keeps making red wine year and year, trying every variation and combination of techniques to work out precisely what are the contributing factors. Some following years are very ordinary, some excellent value for money, some hit the mark quite nicely ...
Meanwhile, everyone else is sampling the normal plonk, and to the infinitessimal degree dissecting the characteristics of one versus the other - something very worthwhile and interesting in itself - but to me certainly not as fascinating as seeing where winemaking taken to the n'th degree can take one ...
You know, Frank, discussing amps here and now reminds me of buying a car.
First, you have your mates saying it's all there, in objective tests, speed, acceleration, consumption, the works.
Second, you have a very craftily put together plan of equipping your car, both in terms of ready made packages and simply paying extra for this or that. I say craftily because it was put together so that it makes you think of yourself as a wimp if you don't have this, or that, or whatever.
But you know that no test data whatsoever, by anybody anywhere, can tell you how the ride feels, is it soft and cushy, or harder so the grip is improved, or hard for some really breakneck driving. They don't and cannot tell how you will feel inside, at the driver's seat, will you feel at home, or in an alien environment. They cannot tell you will the brake pedal feeling be what you want, or will you hate it, even if some magazines (e.g. German Auto, Motor & Sport) DO have a mark for "pedal feeling" - nice, but that's THEIR view.
ASo you end up buying a more upscale amenities package simply because you feel you MUST have one item, even if you do know that the deal adds three more items you don't give a damn about. You buy the whole package either because they won't let you add just that one item, because they chained that item to others you don't care about, or they made it cost alone almost what the whole package costs.
11 months ago, I bought a new car. In the end, my choice was down to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ (top amenities package, minus leather seats which I hate and their sat nav costing €800 when I can buy Garmin's for around €140). As a kinda Ford guy, I dropped Ford Focus with a nice 1.6 litre turbo engine because I felt awful in the driver's seat; I don't think I have ever felt that bad behind the wheel of any car, nothing obvious, but overll it was bad. I dropped Renaul Megane, also with a 1.4 litre turbo engine, because i Took a long and hard look underneath, and what I saw was far too much cost cutting for my taste, flimsy parts which should not be flimsy. Cruze was a classic, conservative technical design car from Opel, GM's European subsidiary, which did most of the developemnt work (Cruze shares a common platform with Opel's Astra series).
The key was that I felt right at home behind the steering wheel, like it was tailor made just for me. I loved the brake pedal feel, whoever designed the brake system was a brake freak at his best, and the suspension is an incredibly well managed compromise between road grip and comfort.
11 months later, I am patting myself on the back for making a good choice. No doubt others will feel differently, after all, the competition is also selling a lot of cars, and I do have a traitor in my own home, namely my son. To him, 1.8 litres and 141 bhp is not enough, he would have liked a non existant version of it with GM/Opel's 1.6 turbo engine, with 182 bhp. But for my wife and me, its 141 bhp is just right, enough to have a lively ride, but way removed from any racing, even street racing. And no additional mechanics in form of a turbo charger to worry about (turbines typically do over 100,000 rpm and need exceptionally precise teflon bearings to operate).
This feel is what people recognize or not in any audio gear. You can measure it any way you like, but whatever you end up with cannot tell anyone how it will sound in their room. True, this will be much influenced by the rest of their system and the room itself, so it's well neigh impossible to cater for all.
Ultimately, if they measured and sounded all the same, we wouldn't have so many takes on it, would we? We'd have a set of measurements certifying that it's a say "Class A" device, and we could buy anybody's and be happy. Yet, many are very partisan on their particular brand, and sometimes even a specific model.
First, you have your mates saying it's all there, in objective tests, speed, acceleration, consumption, the works.
Second, you have a very craftily put together plan of equipping your car, both in terms of ready made packages and simply paying extra for this or that. I say craftily because it was put together so that it makes you think of yourself as a wimp if you don't have this, or that, or whatever.
But you know that no test data whatsoever, by anybody anywhere, can tell you how the ride feels, is it soft and cushy, or harder so the grip is improved, or hard for some really breakneck driving. They don't and cannot tell how you will feel inside, at the driver's seat, will you feel at home, or in an alien environment. They cannot tell you will the brake pedal feeling be what you want, or will you hate it, even if some magazines (e.g. German Auto, Motor & Sport) DO have a mark for "pedal feeling" - nice, but that's THEIR view.
ASo you end up buying a more upscale amenities package simply because you feel you MUST have one item, even if you do know that the deal adds three more items you don't give a damn about. You buy the whole package either because they won't let you add just that one item, because they chained that item to others you don't care about, or they made it cost alone almost what the whole package costs.
11 months ago, I bought a new car. In the end, my choice was down to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ (top amenities package, minus leather seats which I hate and their sat nav costing €800 when I can buy Garmin's for around €140). As a kinda Ford guy, I dropped Ford Focus with a nice 1.6 litre turbo engine because I felt awful in the driver's seat; I don't think I have ever felt that bad behind the wheel of any car, nothing obvious, but overll it was bad. I dropped Renaul Megane, also with a 1.4 litre turbo engine, because i Took a long and hard look underneath, and what I saw was far too much cost cutting for my taste, flimsy parts which should not be flimsy. Cruze was a classic, conservative technical design car from Opel, GM's European subsidiary, which did most of the developemnt work (Cruze shares a common platform with Opel's Astra series).
The key was that I felt right at home behind the steering wheel, like it was tailor made just for me. I loved the brake pedal feel, whoever designed the brake system was a brake freak at his best, and the suspension is an incredibly well managed compromise between road grip and comfort.
11 months later, I am patting myself on the back for making a good choice. No doubt others will feel differently, after all, the competition is also selling a lot of cars, and I do have a traitor in my own home, namely my son. To him, 1.8 litres and 141 bhp is not enough, he would have liked a non existant version of it with GM/Opel's 1.6 turbo engine, with 182 bhp. But for my wife and me, its 141 bhp is just right, enough to have a lively ride, but way removed from any racing, even street racing. And no additional mechanics in form of a turbo charger to worry about (turbines typically do over 100,000 rpm and need exceptionally precise teflon bearings to operate).
This feel is what people recognize or not in any audio gear. You can measure it any way you like, but whatever you end up with cannot tell anyone how it will sound in their room. True, this will be much influenced by the rest of their system and the room itself, so it's well neigh impossible to cater for all.
Ultimately, if they measured and sounded all the same, we wouldn't have so many takes on it, would we? We'd have a set of measurements certifying that it's a say "Class A" device, and we could buy anybody's and be happy. Yet, many are very partisan on their particular brand, and sometimes even a specific model.
Dvv . The worst thing that happened in Britain was so many companies were taken over . Naim Audio lost their mentor Julian Vereker , he died at my now age . Quad was dispersed to the winds ( Quad seems to be Quad once more , albeit at inflated prices ) . Mission's backer hid in Cyprus for years , that caused problems . KEF and Celestion gobbled up . Creek was restored to Mike . I don't think the public lost interest . I think the world was moving so fast as to make hi fi seem a waste of a life as a profession . Such a shame .
In the early days of CD many closed ranks and said it to be absolutely perfect . Anyone who said differently was stupid , incompetent , or political . Many like myself would not accept that . In fact my first CD system was by accident very good . First ever Sony CD player , Creek 4040 amp , Heybrook HB1 speakers . My friend Neil Hulton came into my shop and said when was I going to get a CD ( I had my head in the sand as usual was said ) . He had an hour long rant . Without a word I led him to the dem room and showed him how it worked . About an hour later he came back and said " It's very good . exactly as they said . It's nearly perfect . Only one problem . Why is the orchestra only 1 cm thick ." ? The Creek had a very simple power amp . The CD was fed directly to the volume control . This avoided so many problems of typical amps of the day . I learnt from this how to modify existing amps to suit CD . It was about setting the sensitivity correctly . It was about suiting the volume control and sometimes avoiding clipping of the preamp . Ironically I got an award from Tandburg when a little lad for pointing out a similar problem in one of their Dual based all in one receiver-turntables . Someone at Tandburg had designed for 2.5 mV then fed it with 9.5 mV at the disc input . I would absolutely love to own one of them now . It was idler drive . Superb radio . A pick up arm to rival SME and compact . I probably have the service manual of it somewhere .
My little phono stage has one very weird quality which I can not explain . When set to gain 1000 and fed with 9.5 mV ( same Shure M44 / 7 ) all the happens is it sounds wonderful 80% of the time . The other 20% is sounds like my valve amp saying I can't do that . Why did the Tandburg which was only mildly overloaded sound so bad one way and so good when modified ? The overload margin on my phono stage is 30 dB . The cartridge I usually use has 700 uV . I guess going up 22.65 db is within it's ability ? Technics I think had 53 dB on one of their designs .
CD now has what would almost seem fairy stories to say why one player sounds better than the other . The learned repeat this as if they always knew it . I am sure if I said similar about amplifiers people would at best laugh ?
I think the reason most British amps sound dull might be due to Geoffry Horn . He was affectionate called Deaf Geoff , he liked it loud I was told . The subjective mags called him Sir Geoffrey Horn Gramophone . Geoff's family owned a Hanson cab business in Oxford ( 1890 ? ) . They opened a garage to service motor cabs . Old Mr Horn charged accumulators for radios. Old Mr Horn serviced radios . Eventually Old Mr Horn made the Quad AM 2's ( 1 1/2 per day in the Oxford workshop ) . Young Horn went to be a telephone engineer . Later he worked for the Gramophone magazine . Geoff seemed to have a set of measurements he held to be true . Although Gramophone was not really a hi fi mag it was highly influential . Without it ever being said all things were measured against Quad and if they could drive ESL 57's I suspect .
When I bought my Shure V15 3 the reviewer said . I never comment on sound quality as a rule . We have measurements for that . The measurements here are amongst the best I have ever seem . For once like Lord Nelson I a going to put my telescope to my blind eye and say I see no ships . Alas I bought one on the strength of that . V15 , 2 I prefer . M 44-7 even more so . I think I could have bought an OK motorcycle for what it cost ( £28 discount )?
How do I know the Horn's story ? When Horn's was sold a skeleton of a horse was found under the floor . Geoff knew instantly why . The radio story from a chap at a car boot sale . His dad ran an illegal bookmakers , this chap worked for Old Mr Horn making the Quad AM 2's . As soon as bookmaking became legal he ran his dads legal bookmakers . With a name like Horn one has to be in Hi Fi ? Reviews were " Horn Loaded " ? Lets be clear . Nothing Geoff said was wrong .
Here is one of his better moments . I would have been proud to have written this . Very objective and no graphs ! Geoff I underestimated you . Perhaps the rivals had woken him up to just listening ? Bravo Geoff . He had a nice writing style .
Review: NAD 310 integrated amplifier | gramophone.co.uk
In the early days of CD many closed ranks and said it to be absolutely perfect . Anyone who said differently was stupid , incompetent , or political . Many like myself would not accept that . In fact my first CD system was by accident very good . First ever Sony CD player , Creek 4040 amp , Heybrook HB1 speakers . My friend Neil Hulton came into my shop and said when was I going to get a CD ( I had my head in the sand as usual was said ) . He had an hour long rant . Without a word I led him to the dem room and showed him how it worked . About an hour later he came back and said " It's very good . exactly as they said . It's nearly perfect . Only one problem . Why is the orchestra only 1 cm thick ." ? The Creek had a very simple power amp . The CD was fed directly to the volume control . This avoided so many problems of typical amps of the day . I learnt from this how to modify existing amps to suit CD . It was about setting the sensitivity correctly . It was about suiting the volume control and sometimes avoiding clipping of the preamp . Ironically I got an award from Tandburg when a little lad for pointing out a similar problem in one of their Dual based all in one receiver-turntables . Someone at Tandburg had designed for 2.5 mV then fed it with 9.5 mV at the disc input . I would absolutely love to own one of them now . It was idler drive . Superb radio . A pick up arm to rival SME and compact . I probably have the service manual of it somewhere .
My little phono stage has one very weird quality which I can not explain . When set to gain 1000 and fed with 9.5 mV ( same Shure M44 / 7 ) all the happens is it sounds wonderful 80% of the time . The other 20% is sounds like my valve amp saying I can't do that . Why did the Tandburg which was only mildly overloaded sound so bad one way and so good when modified ? The overload margin on my phono stage is 30 dB . The cartridge I usually use has 700 uV . I guess going up 22.65 db is within it's ability ? Technics I think had 53 dB on one of their designs .
CD now has what would almost seem fairy stories to say why one player sounds better than the other . The learned repeat this as if they always knew it . I am sure if I said similar about amplifiers people would at best laugh ?
I think the reason most British amps sound dull might be due to Geoffry Horn . He was affectionate called Deaf Geoff , he liked it loud I was told . The subjective mags called him Sir Geoffrey Horn Gramophone . Geoff's family owned a Hanson cab business in Oxford ( 1890 ? ) . They opened a garage to service motor cabs . Old Mr Horn charged accumulators for radios. Old Mr Horn serviced radios . Eventually Old Mr Horn made the Quad AM 2's ( 1 1/2 per day in the Oxford workshop ) . Young Horn went to be a telephone engineer . Later he worked for the Gramophone magazine . Geoff seemed to have a set of measurements he held to be true . Although Gramophone was not really a hi fi mag it was highly influential . Without it ever being said all things were measured against Quad and if they could drive ESL 57's I suspect .
When I bought my Shure V15 3 the reviewer said . I never comment on sound quality as a rule . We have measurements for that . The measurements here are amongst the best I have ever seem . For once like Lord Nelson I a going to put my telescope to my blind eye and say I see no ships . Alas I bought one on the strength of that . V15 , 2 I prefer . M 44-7 even more so . I think I could have bought an OK motorcycle for what it cost ( £28 discount )?
How do I know the Horn's story ? When Horn's was sold a skeleton of a horse was found under the floor . Geoff knew instantly why . The radio story from a chap at a car boot sale . His dad ran an illegal bookmakers , this chap worked for Old Mr Horn making the Quad AM 2's . As soon as bookmaking became legal he ran his dads legal bookmakers . With a name like Horn one has to be in Hi Fi ? Reviews were " Horn Loaded " ? Lets be clear . Nothing Geoff said was wrong .
Here is one of his better moments . I would have been proud to have written this . Very objective and no graphs ! Geoff I underestimated you . Perhaps the rivals had woken him up to just listening ? Bravo Geoff . He had a nice writing style .
Review: NAD 310 integrated amplifier | gramophone.co.uk
Why do we need new Class A or AB amps at all? Is there anything that has not been done already? People wax lyrical about this or that amp that they remember as being great in 1986. Why are they not still using that amplifier if it was so good? The only new stuff worth trying, surely, is Class D, maybe integrated with DACs and so on.
In the speaker world is there any point in designing anything new that isn't active with DSP? (Or new types of transducer if that's possible).
Designing yet another standard amplifier or box with two drivers and some 1920s-style inductors in it seems seem really pointless when they can be bought on eBay for a few quid.
Give me something like the Meridian 7200s please.
In the speaker world is there any point in designing anything new that isn't active with DSP? (Or new types of transducer if that's possible).
Designing yet another standard amplifier or box with two drivers and some 1920s-style inductors in it seems seem really pointless when they can be bought on eBay for a few quid.
Give me something like the Meridian 7200s please.
I want a few too, PM for the address.
I think I heard them once but it was at a show and I need to travel some 500km to get to one. since I absolutely hate travelling by other means except teleportation, fatigue had its say and I can't remember much about the sound.
a very simple question. say you want to develop a speaker. what amp do you take as reference? an amp that was developed using other speakers, which in turn were developed using another amp etc? isn't this a very real problem, because there is no real reference? if your speakers are tuned to sound good with a certain amp which is not objectively accurate, you'll force your customers to look for other amps that are inaccurate in the same way, in order to achieve the same sound. isn't it a very upside-down approach? yes, it feeds the wicked game of high end (create a problem in order to create a solution), but is it rational?
if this sounds like nit-picking and nothing more than a subject for a theoretical debate, remember that Dynaudio developed their own ultra expensive amp for internal use in speaker design. some were sold to the public I think. I would not be surprised if I found that those amps were designed for absolute objective accuracy, but taken to levels that are not attained by most other commercial products. it would be rather odd to develop a reference amp for designing speakers, tuning it by ear with speakers that were not designed with a reference amp, don't you think?
Last edited:
There are some issues with DSP. It is difficult to maintain optimal gain structure. Latency issues may make integration with video complicated. For these reasons, I think active with analog active xover is way to go.
I agree that truly optimal DSP with live sound is problematic, but for working with video I would be imagining that it should be possible to simply delay the video by the requisite amount.
Not sure what you are implying in your reference to gain structure. I think that these days a few bits of resolution can be sacrificed without audible penalty.
a very simple question. say you want to develop a speaker. what amp do you take as reference? an amp that was developed using other speakers, which in turn were developed using another amp etc? isn't this a very real problem, because there is no real reference? if your speakers are tuned to sound good with a certain amp which is not objectively accurate, you'll force your customers to look for other amps that are inaccurate in the same way, in order to achieve the same sound. isn't it a very upside-down approach? yes, it feeds the wicked game of high end (create a problem in order to create a solution), but is it rational?
if this sounds like nit-picking and nothing more than a subject for a theoretical debate, remember that Dynaudio developed their own ultra expensive amp for internal use in speaker design. some were sold to the public I think. I would not be surprised if I found that those amps were designed for absolute objective accuracy, but taken to levels that are not attained by most other commercial products. it would be rather odd to develop a reference amp for designing speakers, tuning it by ear with speakers that were not designed with a reference amp, don't you think?
I am genuinely undecided as to whether there are any audible differences between competently-designed amps. To me, it seems entirely plausible that a LM3886 sounds exactly the same as a Krell [fill in whichever high end amp you like] save for the 'experimenter bias' effects. As far as I can tell, there is only anecdotal evidence to the contrary - all the DB listening tests I see referred to seem to suggest that people can hear no difference. Happy to be shown otherwise, however.
So at the moment I'm not worried about which amp is used to develop a speaker - they all sound the same, roughly speaking. But I am reasonably convinced that speakers don't all sound the same, and that there is still fertile ground for development using DSP. Analogue active offends me because it seems so half-hearted, even though it must, at least, be better than passive (in my opinion).
I am speaking based on what I am developping now, a three way active speaker.
Presently it plays with a DSP based crossover, and I run it with TV also for evaluation. Fortunately, my Samsung has digital out and the possibility to delay video with up to 2 ms. This is just enough. Most TV's don't have this capability however, so it would make for a lousy product.
On gain structure, the problem is with volume control. In a perfect world all connections would be digital right up to the speaker, communicating in full word length. Volume should then be a seperate signal, contrrolling attenuation after the digital stage. This is not yet there on the consumer market. This means that the speakers will be driven with analog signals, and at lower settings, the DSP will have fewer and fewer bits to work with.
Presently it plays with a DSP based crossover, and I run it with TV also for evaluation. Fortunately, my Samsung has digital out and the possibility to delay video with up to 2 ms. This is just enough. Most TV's don't have this capability however, so it would make for a lousy product.
On gain structure, the problem is with volume control. In a perfect world all connections would be digital right up to the speaker, communicating in full word length. Volume should then be a seperate signal, contrrolling attenuation after the digital stage. This is not yet there on the consumer market. This means that the speakers will be driven with analog signals, and at lower settings, the DSP will have fewer and fewer bits to work with.
You only really need a DSP with bad drivers in bad enclosures, just so that you can iron out the FR. In any competently designed speaker, you don't need such drastic corrections, so nothing half-hearted about translating a desired set of curves into an active analog filter. It requires more effort than sliding some rulers in the DSP interface.
Although there are many disadvantages to an open-loop "1-bit D-A" at the loudspeaker, the limited word length/resolution need not be one of them. One merely needs to adjust the volume using the power supply rails.
You will want to do this anyway since the open-loop approach is very sensitive to the power supply. This was done in the earliest days of the much-ballyhooed "digital" amplifiers, like the TaCT. Between the complex and large output filters and the need for pristine well-regulated rails, the stuff in the box was dominated by them.
You will want to do this anyway since the open-loop approach is very sensitive to the power supply. This was done in the earliest days of the much-ballyhooed "digital" amplifiers, like the TaCT. Between the complex and large output filters and the need for pristine well-regulated rails, the stuff in the box was dominated by them.
Which comes back to a key point: there is no "magic bullet": cheap and nasty electronics, etc, done right, will deliver very satisfying, realistic sound; extremely expensive, "engineered" to the max, with every theoretical bell and whistle included, can easily sound like sh!te. I know, because I heard it both ways ...
To coin an old phrase,, it's not what you have, but how you use it that counts ...
To coin an old phrase,
, it's not what you have, but how you use it that counts ...
More naughtiness please! I particularly like this part '...instead of trying to translate what I was hearing...'. Its the 'mental translation' or (as I prefer) 'mental interpretation' part which gets overridden with a decent system and results in the samsara experience. The conscious, thinking part of the mind is silenced and the result is what's called 'flow'.
@CopperTop - got any handle on what 'competently designed' might mean in practice? From where I stand the vast majority of commercial amps aren't competently designed. So where's the dividing line for you?
@CopperTop - got any handle on what 'competently designed' might mean in practice? From where I stand the vast majority of commercial amps aren't competently designed. So where's the dividing line for you?
Last edited:
YUMMI! The way to go, Vacuphile!
I am a bit surprised. I never worked with any DSP, but off hand, I would have thought controlling volume should never have even been an issue.
Actually Frank, the quote you posted says it all very succintly. THAT'S the whole point.
I cannot draw a clean, clear line good for everything, so I am limited to my own experience. When I am free to listen to the music itself without hinderance I am aware of, I have a good system.
Abraxalito also makes a very good point.
I cannot draw a clean, clear line good for everything, so I am limited to my own experience. When I am free to listen to the music itself without hinderance I am aware of, I have a good system.
Abraxalito also makes a very good point.
YUMMI! The way to go, Vacuphile!
I am a bit surprised. I never worked with any DSP, but off hand, I would have thought controlling volume should never have even been an issue.
Controlling volume indeed is not an issue if you do it after the DA conversion, but this makes it impossible to have a central volume control. Not so consumer friendly if you have to set volume on both speakers every time you make a change. A digital link combining the music words with a volume code would be the way out, but AFAIK there is no standard in this field for home stereo.
There's also phase to worry about, and a purist might be interested in proper time alignment, and the ability to get a true impulse out of the speaker. The DSP side of things might allow the designer to choose from a wider range of drivers while still being able to claim "competence".
Or providing a means for the user to optimise the sound in a more sophisticated way than "These speakers sound best when placed 36 inches from the rear wall".
To me, this topic is a bit like comparing the design of a car engine based on a carburettor and mechanical distributor to one with injection and electronic spark generation. There is a kind of bravado in producing a passable result using old technology - and it's very hard work and requires a long apprenticeship - but the reality is that it really is just a matter of sliding a few rulers in a DSP interface to equal and surpass what was possible before. For a while in the car industry there was an overlap between carburettor people and ECU people, and anyone wanting to design ECUs had to have served their time understanding dashpots and so on. But now no one tries to emulate a mechanical dashpot in their ECU software but simply plugs in whatever response they like, based on a formula or lookup table, and literally slides a few rulers in a DSP interface.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.