I could understand your objection if you've had checked on the correctness of the premises. It should be obvious that any conclusions about "first principles" make sense only, if every possible other variable is ruled out.
Usually that is simply not a given, as even on the ic level a lot of differences occur, even datasheets show some differences between modes and of course different noise shaping takes place.
Please don't confuse psychoacoustics with psychology; different noise distributions lead to different perceptions although on an individual level, intersubject differences are common.
This thread is about sound quality (intentionally meant as quality perceived and evaluated by humans) and measurements; talking about "brain tricks" and "reality" seems to neglect the existence of hard wired "tricks" which most of uns share, the perception of a virtual sound source is nothing but a "brain trick" but the most obvious wrt usual stereophonic reproduction. The percepted virtual sound source is an illusion but it is as real as it can get.
(Leaving aside the small portion of human listeners who do not percept that way, for unknown reasons so far.)
Hi Chris,
maybe I was not able to explain what I meant.
As you know I'm not mother tongue so I could have some difficulty understanding what you mean and explaining what I mean.
Then I ask you to be patient and accept my difficulty as is, otherwise I can only leave the thread and the forum.
If you can accept this let me elaborate a little.
I believe my mind is rational and my approach is pragmatic.
Therefore when you write "I did get a system based on its schematic (preliminary) and knowledge of the manufacturer. Didn't even see any specs before I decided" I assume the measurements are not everything for you.
Except if I claim so in this thread at least the answer is "Rinse and repeat.", but more likely I will be insulted (which is not a problem for me anyway given the people who insult me).
In my rational and pragmatic mind I assume so because from the manufacturer website the measurements of the Cyrus Mono X are not spectacular:
Distortion –
<0.004%, (1kHz into 8 Ohms) or -88dB
<0.05%, (20Hz-20kHz into 8 Ohms) or -66dB
If the only way you trust was the objective measurements I cannot realize any reason to choose such that amplifier over the Hypex NC400 with its (quoted) "second harmonic down to -130 dB!!! Pretty remarkable".
But please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.
So I didn't think I have quoted an except, or at least I thought your approach was not based solely on measurements
But again correct me if I was wrong.
Now if I was not wrong, in my rational mind a single exception is more than sufficient.
So I go ahead, just to understand a possible correlation of the exception with other considerations in your reply, like the followings:
"All it means is that I have an awful lot of experience, that's all."
"No shock, no magic. Just some experience."
I assume it's true, I have no reason to doubt your experience and the fact that this is important and necessary to evaluate an amplifier beyond its objective measurements.
Therefore I wonder if you assume that someone like me, who is not a professional, he might not be able to make the same assessments.
If so, let me say it's a presumption that may be baseless, since you don't know what the experience of people like me is.
Since I believe I'm rational I'm sure I can perform objective measurements just like I'm sure I can hear sound differences between audio devices.
Just because I was equipped with sight to read the measurements and hearing to hear what was measured.
And if the two facts are inconsistent, I ask myself some questions.
And now the pragmatism: if the two facts are consistent this thread does not make sense to exist.
Let me assume this thread makes sense, so my rational mind tells me there is something wrong in the measurement method.
So my open mind leads me to try to find a way to overcome the limitations of today's measurements, which are not much different from the ones that failed in the 1970s.
That's all, I'm not biased towards measurements, but I'd like to find a way to make them more effective.
Andrea
maybe I was not able to explain what I meant.
As you know I'm not mother tongue so I could have some difficulty understanding what you mean and explaining what I mean.
Then I ask you to be patient and accept my difficulty as is, otherwise I can only leave the thread and the forum.
If you can accept this let me elaborate a little.
I believe my mind is rational and my approach is pragmatic.
Therefore when you write "I did get a system based on its schematic (preliminary) and knowledge of the manufacturer. Didn't even see any specs before I decided" I assume the measurements are not everything for you.
Except if I claim so in this thread at least the answer is "Rinse and repeat.", but more likely I will be insulted (which is not a problem for me anyway given the people who insult me).
In my rational and pragmatic mind I assume so because from the manufacturer website the measurements of the Cyrus Mono X are not spectacular:
Distortion –
<0.004%, (1kHz into 8 Ohms) or -88dB
<0.05%, (20Hz-20kHz into 8 Ohms) or -66dB
If the only way you trust was the objective measurements I cannot realize any reason to choose such that amplifier over the Hypex NC400 with its (quoted) "second harmonic down to -130 dB!!! Pretty remarkable".
But please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.
So I didn't think I have quoted an except, or at least I thought your approach was not based solely on measurements
But again correct me if I was wrong.
Now if I was not wrong, in my rational mind a single exception is more than sufficient.
So I go ahead, just to understand a possible correlation of the exception with other considerations in your reply, like the followings:
"All it means is that I have an awful lot of experience, that's all."
"No shock, no magic. Just some experience."
I assume it's true, I have no reason to doubt your experience and the fact that this is important and necessary to evaluate an amplifier beyond its objective measurements.
Therefore I wonder if you assume that someone like me, who is not a professional, he might not be able to make the same assessments.
If so, let me say it's a presumption that may be baseless, since you don't know what the experience of people like me is.
Since I believe I'm rational I'm sure I can perform objective measurements just like I'm sure I can hear sound differences between audio devices.
Just because I was equipped with sight to read the measurements and hearing to hear what was measured.
And if the two facts are inconsistent, I ask myself some questions.
And now the pragmatism: if the two facts are consistent this thread does not make sense to exist.
Let me assume this thread makes sense, so my rational mind tells me there is something wrong in the measurement method.
So my open mind leads me to try to find a way to overcome the limitations of today's measurements, which are not much different from the ones that failed in the 1970s.
That's all, I'm not biased towards measurements, but I'd like to find a way to make them more effective.
Andrea
andrea_mori,
using common language, it is challenging to design good sounding amplifiers based on measurements. I value intuition higher than the engineering approach. Intuition is a rare skill. You, like most people, mistakenly think that high operating precision in audio is technically superior and represents the right path to Nirvana. Achieving high precision does not come for free.
using common language, it is challenging to design good sounding amplifiers based on measurements. I value intuition higher than the engineering approach. Intuition is a rare skill. You, like most people, mistakenly think that high operating precision in audio is technically superior and represents the right path to Nirvana. Achieving high precision does not come for free.
Yes, indra1 got it right this time. I have to admit, reading such messages of yours is like watching something as it comes out of the bull, in particular "the percepted virtual sound source is an illusion but it is as real as it can get". For you, I suppose, Houdini's tricks are also "as real as it can get", and so are the optical illusions: 25 Optical Illusions That Prove Your Brain Sucks | PCMag
I thought I wrote something different, but evidently I didn't explain myself well.
Hi Andrea,
I can accept difficulty in language and explaining oneself. No problem.
Published specifications are always worst case to cover the most unfortunate unit that comes off the line short of being defective. It isn't uncommon to find the average performance might be a factor of 10 better in some cases. But distortion numbers are only a hint of performance. What you need to see is the output spectrum showing the signal, harmonics and other tones, and the noise floor. That can tell you a great deal about the design and execution.
We normally can detect stuff about -80 dB down - approximately. That is also the noise floor of older THD meters (good ones). I used such a meter for years, but also took the monitor output into a spectrum analyzer which allowed me to "see" deeper and to see what we were actually measuring. That makes a big difference.
Over the years I was involved with improving the performance of existing designs along with repairing them and designing new products. I'll include an extreme example of one amplifier that was sold as an upgraded unit and what I was able to do with it. Once it was complete, the amplifier sounded sort of acceptable, but it was a mess before I started. See attachments. Note that tests are done at about 1 watt into 1 ohm. This is because most amplifiers perform at their worst at lower levels, and 1 watt is kinda loud. So it represents an area of worst performance that corresponds to a realistic listening level. While its numbers aren't bad, this amplifier design does not sound very good. At least it is good enough for the owner to sell it now, or he can use them as backup amplifiers.
If I had readings for the Cyrus amplifiers I would post them. I might try even though the output connectors are something I do not have plugs for (BFA connectors).
Just because something has excellent specifications at 1 watt, the performance can fall to pieces at higher volume levels. IC chips are famous for this and often sound excellent at low volumes. I can't comment on those you refer to without auditioning one, then measuring it. If one became available, I would assess it and let you know.
-Chris
I can accept difficulty in language and explaining oneself. No problem.
Published specifications are always worst case to cover the most unfortunate unit that comes off the line short of being defective. It isn't uncommon to find the average performance might be a factor of 10 better in some cases. But distortion numbers are only a hint of performance. What you need to see is the output spectrum showing the signal, harmonics and other tones, and the noise floor. That can tell you a great deal about the design and execution.
We normally can detect stuff about -80 dB down - approximately. That is also the noise floor of older THD meters (good ones). I used such a meter for years, but also took the monitor output into a spectrum analyzer which allowed me to "see" deeper and to see what we were actually measuring. That makes a big difference.
Over the years I was involved with improving the performance of existing designs along with repairing them and designing new products. I'll include an extreme example of one amplifier that was sold as an upgraded unit and what I was able to do with it. Once it was complete, the amplifier sounded sort of acceptable, but it was a mess before I started. See attachments. Note that tests are done at about 1 watt into 1 ohm. This is because most amplifiers perform at their worst at lower levels, and 1 watt is kinda loud. So it represents an area of worst performance that corresponds to a realistic listening level. While its numbers aren't bad, this amplifier design does not sound very good. At least it is good enough for the owner to sell it now, or he can use them as backup amplifiers.
If I had readings for the Cyrus amplifiers I would post them. I might try even though the output connectors are something I do not have plugs for (BFA connectors).
Just because something has excellent specifications at 1 watt, the performance can fall to pieces at higher volume levels. IC chips are famous for this and often sound excellent at low volumes. I can't comment on those you refer to without auditioning one, then measuring it. If one became available, I would assess it and let you know.
-Chris
Attachments
#19744 was for me quite incomprehensible and confusing.
Something to look out for; when one refer to oneself as rational - thats a warning in itself. Because that is when one start to doubt oneself and need to say it out loud to feel sure.
If I felt I was constantly misunderstood I would personally start to back-translate my prepared english post into Swedish in order to see what other seem to receive... just a few posts so I would know....
//
google translate ->
forse non sono stato in grado di spiegare cosa intendevo.
Come sai non sono madrelingua, quindi potrei avere qualche difficoltà a capire cosa intendi e spiegare cosa intendo.
Allora ti chiedo di avere pazienza e di accettare la mia difficoltà così com'è, altrimenti posso solo lasciare il thread e il forum.
Se puoi accettare questo, lasciami elaborare un po '.
Credo che la mia mente sia razionale e il mio approccio sia pragmatico.
Pertanto, quando scrivi "Ho ottenuto un sistema basato sul suo schema (preliminare) e sulla conoscenza del produttore. Non ho nemmeno visto alcuna specifica prima di decidere" presumo che le misurazioni non siano tutto per te.
Tranne se lo dichiaro in questo thread almeno la risposta è "Risciacqua e ripeti", ma più probabilmente verrò insultato (che comunque non è un problema per me viste le persone che mi insultano).
Nella mia mente razionale e pragmatica lo presumo perché dal sito del produttore le misure del Cyrus Mono X non sono spettacolari:
Distorsione -
<0,004%, (1 kHz su 8 ohm) o -88 dB
<0,05%, (20Hz-20kHz su 8 Ohm) o -66dB
Se l'unico modo di cui ti fidi fossero le misurazioni oggettive non mi rendo conto di alcun motivo per scegliere tale amplificatore rispetto all'Hypex NC400 con la sua (citata) "seconda armonica fino a -130 dB !!! Abbastanza notevole".
Ma per favore correggimi se il mio ragionamento è sbagliato.
Quindi non pensavo di aver citato un'eccezione, o almeno pensavo che il tuo approccio non fosse basato esclusivamente sulle misurazioni
Ma di nuovo correggimi se ho sbagliato.
Ora, se non ho sbagliato, nella mia mente razionale una singola eccezione è più che sufficiente.
Quindi vado avanti, giusto per capire una possibile correlazione dell'eccezione con altre considerazioni nella tua risposta, come le seguenti:
"Significa solo che ho un'enorme esperienza, tutto qui."
"Nessuno shock, nessuna magia. Solo un po 'di esperienza."
Presumo sia vero, non ho motivo di dubitare della tua esperienza e del fatto che questo sia importante e necessario per valutare un amplificatore al di là delle sue misure oggettive.
Quindi mi chiedo se presumi che uno come me, che non è un professionista, potrebbe non essere in grado di fare le stesse valutazioni.
Se è così, lasciami dire che è una presunzione che potrebbe essere priva di fondamento, dal momento che non sai quale sia l'esperienza di persone come me.
Dato che credo di essere razionale, sono sicuro di poter eseguire misurazioni oggettive proprio come sono sicuro di poter sentire le differenze di suono tra i dispositivi audio.
Solo perché ero dotato della vista per leggere le misurazioni e dell'udito per ascoltare ciò che veniva misurato.
E se i due fatti non sono coerenti, mi pongo alcune domande.
E ora il pragmatismo: se i due fatti sono coerenti questo filo non ha senso che esista.
Presumo che questo thread abbia un senso, quindi la mia mente razionale mi dice che c'è qualcosa di sbagliato nel metodo di misurazione.
Quindi la mia mente aperta mi porta a cercare di trovare un modo per superare i limiti delle misurazioni odierne, che non sono molto diverse da quelle fallite negli anni '70.
Questo è tutto, non sono di parte verso le misurazioni, ma mi piacerebbe trovare un modo per renderle più efficaci.
Did that sound OK? Possible some google distorsion in there - probably measurable
//2
Something to look out for; when one refer to oneself as rational - thats a warning in itself. Because that is when one start to doubt oneself and need to say it out loud to feel sure.
If I felt I was constantly misunderstood I would personally start to back-translate my prepared english post into Swedish in order to see what other seem to receive... just a few posts so I would know....
//
google translate ->
forse non sono stato in grado di spiegare cosa intendevo.
Come sai non sono madrelingua, quindi potrei avere qualche difficoltà a capire cosa intendi e spiegare cosa intendo.
Allora ti chiedo di avere pazienza e di accettare la mia difficoltà così com'è, altrimenti posso solo lasciare il thread e il forum.
Se puoi accettare questo, lasciami elaborare un po '.
Credo che la mia mente sia razionale e il mio approccio sia pragmatico.
Pertanto, quando scrivi "Ho ottenuto un sistema basato sul suo schema (preliminare) e sulla conoscenza del produttore. Non ho nemmeno visto alcuna specifica prima di decidere" presumo che le misurazioni non siano tutto per te.
Tranne se lo dichiaro in questo thread almeno la risposta è "Risciacqua e ripeti", ma più probabilmente verrò insultato (che comunque non è un problema per me viste le persone che mi insultano).
Nella mia mente razionale e pragmatica lo presumo perché dal sito del produttore le misure del Cyrus Mono X non sono spettacolari:
Distorsione -
<0,004%, (1 kHz su 8 ohm) o -88 dB
<0,05%, (20Hz-20kHz su 8 Ohm) o -66dB
Se l'unico modo di cui ti fidi fossero le misurazioni oggettive non mi rendo conto di alcun motivo per scegliere tale amplificatore rispetto all'Hypex NC400 con la sua (citata) "seconda armonica fino a -130 dB !!! Abbastanza notevole".
Ma per favore correggimi se il mio ragionamento è sbagliato.
Quindi non pensavo di aver citato un'eccezione, o almeno pensavo che il tuo approccio non fosse basato esclusivamente sulle misurazioni
Ma di nuovo correggimi se ho sbagliato.
Ora, se non ho sbagliato, nella mia mente razionale una singola eccezione è più che sufficiente.
Quindi vado avanti, giusto per capire una possibile correlazione dell'eccezione con altre considerazioni nella tua risposta, come le seguenti:
"Significa solo che ho un'enorme esperienza, tutto qui."
"Nessuno shock, nessuna magia. Solo un po 'di esperienza."
Presumo sia vero, non ho motivo di dubitare della tua esperienza e del fatto che questo sia importante e necessario per valutare un amplificatore al di là delle sue misure oggettive.
Quindi mi chiedo se presumi che uno come me, che non è un professionista, potrebbe non essere in grado di fare le stesse valutazioni.
Se è così, lasciami dire che è una presunzione che potrebbe essere priva di fondamento, dal momento che non sai quale sia l'esperienza di persone come me.
Dato che credo di essere razionale, sono sicuro di poter eseguire misurazioni oggettive proprio come sono sicuro di poter sentire le differenze di suono tra i dispositivi audio.
Solo perché ero dotato della vista per leggere le misurazioni e dell'udito per ascoltare ciò che veniva misurato.
E se i due fatti non sono coerenti, mi pongo alcune domande.
E ora il pragmatismo: se i due fatti sono coerenti questo filo non ha senso che esista.
Presumo che questo thread abbia un senso, quindi la mia mente razionale mi dice che c'è qualcosa di sbagliato nel metodo di misurazione.
Quindi la mia mente aperta mi porta a cercare di trovare un modo per superare i limiti delle misurazioni odierne, che non sono molto diverse da quelle fallite negli anni '70.
Questo è tutto, non sono di parte verso le misurazioni, ma mi piacerebbe trovare un modo per renderle più efficaci.
Did that sound OK? Possible some google distorsion in there - probably measurable
//2
It's pretty bad, isn't it? There is one peak from my LED work lights on the bench, but I know what it is and ignore it.
Basically, the amp isn't as stable as it should be and maybe switching distortion in the output stage is exciting something else. I didn't completely analyze this product. I was paid to make it listenable by solving the worst of its problems. I was successful in doing that. I did not have a schematic or I probably could have done even more to help it.
-Chris
That was 30 years ago. Now most studios use powered monitors. I see a lot of Genelecs and Adams ( Focals, JBLs, KRKs etc.) both nearfields and mains.
No one actualy liked the NS10s ("nasty 10s") but they were the kind of sound people had at home. If you could make a mix sound great on those it would sound great on most systems. More or less.
And if mixers realy want to hear what the consumers are hearing today they would mix with apple earbuds. I bet they at least check the mix on those.
By the mid 90s there were already better main monitors starting to appear in studios, Westlakes were popular. I worked in front of these for a couple years in 89.
sota cf2000 - Google Search
Designed with help from the NRC using Dr Tooles early research.
sota cf2000 - Google Search
Designed with help from the NRC using Dr Tooles early research.
Similarly I've read that people have heard more depth when speakers appear to have space behind them even when they actually haven't. You can't trust a sighted listening test.
Stacking large Advents was very popular 45yr. ago, did anyone ever try all 4 ways of stacking them?
Hi Chris,
often you have not access at such measurements (just the case of the Cyrus amp) so, as you wrote, you have to rely on other parameters such as amplifier typologies.
Can you believe that even people like me are able to make evaluations based on parameters other than measurements, especially if suitable ones are not available?
In the end I find today's measurements are not much useful.
That's the reason I wrote I'd like to find a way to make them more effective.
And just in case someone was interested in this research I'm here.
Andrea
- Status
- Not open for further replies.