The "sound" of a system is that of the distortion it's adding to the reproduction - so all the adjectives being bandied about are describing the type and level of audible artifacts; if no significant distortion is audible, then the system has no "sound" - two competent systems, made up of components using completely contrasting technologies, should sound identical on a particular recording - if they don't, then at least one is is less than fully competent ...
[/QUOTE]One of the benefits of a framework like this, and it's certainly not the only one, is a repeatable and coherent way for musicians and technicians to communicate about a sound product. We need to stop bickering about the pettier stuff for now and come to a consensus about how to define sound categorically and comprehensively with words. [/QUOTE]
That will require a demonstration that the proposed sound qualities are reliably heard and discriminated by said musicians and technicians (plural not singular). That task alone would be a major psychoacoustic undertaking and should logically precede any attempt to correlate the purported qualities to design difference among amplifiers. In the absence of such demonstration we are left with the singular impressions of individuals and their various attempts to translate those impressions into language. In other words without a way to reliably measure the big 3 we have no hope of ever correlating them with the design variations among amps.
That will require a demonstration that the proposed sound qualities are reliably heard and discriminated by said musicians and technicians (plural not singular). That task alone would be a major psychoacoustic undertaking and should logically precede any attempt to correlate the purported qualities to design difference among amplifiers. In the absence of such demonstration we are left with the singular impressions of individuals and their various attempts to translate those impressions into language. In other words without a way to reliably measure the big 3 we have no hope of ever correlating them with the design variations among amps.
Correct you cannot prove a negative. So the burden of proof falls on those who assert there is a difference.
bonfis
Welcome. We know there are chickens, we know there are eggs and we know they are related. They explain each other by a logical determination the same way I believe my postulates do for a processed sound signal. There is no real requirement for a measured standard of them initially as long as we all agree to their description. Most people understand what a sound stage is. Even if they never experienced one before, they can identify one when they first do. Same goes for timbral accuracy and PRaT. The ideal may different to each person but the concept of the definitions are the same. Once one set of variables is sorted out, the refining process of the standard can be developed over time and testing.
Welcome. We know there are chickens, we know there are eggs and we know they are related. They explain each other by a logical determination the same way I believe my postulates do for a processed sound signal. There is no real requirement for a measured standard of them initially as long as we all agree to their description. Most people understand what a sound stage is. Even if they never experienced one before, they can identify one when they first do. Same goes for timbral accuracy and PRaT. The ideal may different to each person but the concept of the definitions are the same. Once one set of variables is sorted out, the refining process of the standard can be developed over time and testing.
When you and I and the rest of English speaking humanity see a chicken we all use the word "chicken" to label it. That is we have a learned agreement on what to call a common sensory experience. At any time I can verify that agreement by asking my fellow human to name the feathery creature strutting in the barnyard. That is precisely what's absent when it comes to timbral et al. Any agreement reached here on this forum about the meaning or merit of such terms lacks the key ingredient of a shared (in real time) sensory experience to which to assign the terms. When you can demonstrate that a group of listeners can agree that they are hearing more or less Timbral or PRaT then you can begin to look at the non-human factors influencing this perception. Until then we are just agreeing to associate one verbal concept with another.
But if someone described a lens as having a beautiful look to it? Would you consider him a loony? A lens should be perfect and not distort in any way. How can a lens have any good quality other than perfection? A lens should not interpret what it sees.
It's as silly as the amp argument.
Well, if you want the amp to be an effects box, it can be done, and no-one argues the opposite- but that deliberate imperfection manifests as source impedance, frequency response, and high distortion (we don't seem to be sensitive to low distortion).
Lenses are more imperfect than amplifiers (assuming the design target is sonic transparency), so I don't follow the analogy to a box of gain which can trivially be made blameless (to steal a term).
edit: Microphones sound different and all are imperfect in audible ways. Whaddaya know.
I'll wag my finger here at the my engineering friends in this thread. Not that it's likely to do any good.You are missing a great opportunity here. You are all in such a hurry to roll your eyes, make snide remarks and poo-poo the ideas of those you consider your technical inferiors - that you can't even be bothered to look at the issue. Put your prejudices aside and start thinking.
Amplifiers can, and do, sound different. All perfect amplifiers should sound alike, but no amplifier is perfect. Sure, many of you will claim an amp can be "perfect enough not to matter" - but plenty will be skeptical of that statement. And then there are all the audibly imperfect amps. Why do they sound they way they do? What is amp A doing that makes someone prefer it over amp B? That's important.
Is it all down to frequency response and THD into a resistive load? I doubt any here would think the answer so simple. There are far more things to look at than just FR and THD. What matters? What doesn't?
Audio amplifiers drive complex loads across a 10 octave bandwidth and wide dynamic range. There is a lot that can go wrong. I've measured amps that that do very well at or below 1Khz, but quickly go sour above that. How does that sound? Does the subjective nature of the amp change if its behavior above 1Khz is improved? Vice-verse amps that do well from the midrange up, but not so well in the bass.
What about output impedance and stability? Is lower impedance always better? Maybe not for all speakers. Instability? Mostly sounds bad, but what if adds something missing from the speaker or the owners ears? He might think it sounds more detailed or airy. And in that situation it's a subjectively better amp.
Yes, as SY mentioned earlier, they are better ways to manipulate the sound than with an amp. Especially in these days of DSP. But knowing what characteristics make an amp sound a certain way is helpful knowledge. It may help toward the design of a better amp. Or toward fixing other faults in the system that the amp is masking or blurring.
Because of the mad rush to poke fun at and belittle the questions of others, you've all missed a great opportunity. A great teaching moment has passed. Probably too late to fix it, now.
None who have ever bothered to do an ears-only level-matched comparison. People are skeptical that copper and silver wire sound the same, yet the data show the truth clearly, as you humorously demonstrated. Same with amps.
The rest of your post is an argument for an effects box, at which point the lofty descriptors of this thread become meaningless. Pace, rhythm, and timing are... wait for it.... time functions. Unless you're doing something amazingly complex (modulated delay lines), the amp has not one thing to do with that. "PRaT" is a marketing term, plain and simple.
Yes, speakers can have optimum source impedances. The vast majority are designed for a near-zero source impedance, and an amp that has a deliberately high one will not have a consistent "sound" since speakers's impedances vary. Generalizing that to describing an amp as "refulgent" or "lubricious" or whatever will be rather misleading.
Don't think I did. Your stated "There is no real requirement for a measured standard of them (ie the postulated sound qualities) initially as long as we all agree to their description." The first problem is we don't all agree and the second is that even if we did it would be meaningless unless we all agreed that we were hearing them while listening together. In short you have no chicken.
Would agree there are plenty of ways to manipulate the sound, in a controlled and possibly satisfying way. But to do the job properly you need to start with the "wire with gain", i.e. super clean sound; then if you want to imitate, say, a Wavac amplifier you're in an excellent position to faithfully do so, there won't be any limitations in getting precisely the results you want. What are normally called low distortion amplifiers won't do it; yes, they can be made to nominally imitate some of the characteristics but any extended listening reveals that key qualities of the imitated device are missing, there are still too many imperfections in the copying device which intrude and impose their 'signature' ...
Last edited:
Trivially easy to show in a circuit simulation that the behaviour of an amplifier alters by adjusting the parameters that it deals with, i.e. realistic power supplies, parasitics in the "external" environment, complex loads. And that's with relatively ideal parts and circuit. The distortion in some areas can be made 100 times or more worse, without any difficulty.
Of course if the belief is that people can't hear distortion unless it is gross in nature then this doesn't mean anything ...
I suspect that the issue here is not that they're not thinking, rather they'd rather rely on thinking (that they know better) than listening.
OHH; that Wavac thing !!!!!!!
The system where it works best has maybe 100dB efficiency and 16 Ohm like an Altec Voice of the Theater.
To take things out of context does not work.
A Magico speaker with 4 Ohm and 81dB for example needs much more power then the Wavac can provide clean so this combination will fail horrid.
You have never heard it and make absolute claims ?
The system where it works best has maybe 100dB efficiency and 16 Ohm like an Altec Voice of the Theater.
To take things out of context does not work.
A Magico speaker with 4 Ohm and 81dB for example needs much more power then the Wavac can provide clean so this combination will fail horrid.
You have never heard it and make absolute claims ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.