to get back to an earlier post of mine...
especially to KYW, have you read some on the pages of Roger Russel? I still do think he should know. And also that he DOES know alot about hifi. He thinks all well designed amps sound the same, as long as they are not driven into clipping.
http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm
I've got a prospect of B&W loudspeakers, in which they advise the user of B&W loudspeakers to buy an amp that has the features they need, and the looks they like. They say that the soundquality of both amps and digital sources are always near perfect.
Same goes for the German speaker manufacturer Canton. My speakers are Canton. The manual says :"it can unhesitantly be used in conjunction with all standard amplifiers and receivers".
keyser
especially to KYW, have you read some on the pages of Roger Russel? I still do think he should know. And also that he DOES know alot about hifi. He thinks all well designed amps sound the same, as long as they are not driven into clipping.
http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm
I've got a prospect of B&W loudspeakers, in which they advise the user of B&W loudspeakers to buy an amp that has the features they need, and the looks they like. They say that the soundquality of both amps and digital sources are always near perfect.
Same goes for the German speaker manufacturer Canton. My speakers are Canton. The manual says :"it can unhesitantly be used in conjunction with all standard amplifiers and receivers".
keyser
Konnichiwa,
Actually, as it so happens I am quite familiar with them, due to his very interesting speaker designs for MacIntosh.
Yes, HE SHOULD know. But in reality things are rarely as they SHOULD be.
And therefore you and I should ignore any experiences of our own and simply adopt his view? I don't think so.
Then his definition of a "not well designed" amplifier wiould be one that sounds different. Or in other words he asserts that if you do exatcly what the majority does (which is often falsely considered good practice - usually it is not) you get the same sort of results the majority does.
That I actually agree completely with (the part that if you do the same as everyone else the results ar pretty much the same), but it does not help the issues any.
And they should know because they have huge amounts of experience designing amplifiers and digital sources....
Hey, all it says that it will be safe to use with any crud you care to use, they say nothing about the sound.
So, let me sumarise your position:
1) Your Prophet states a truism that you choose to widely misinterpret.
2) A Speaker making company claims all amp's and cd players sound the same. They provide nothing else to support their contention.
3) Another speaker company says their speakers will operate safely with any gear.
Now all three of your points are completely pointless noise. If you cite them as supporting your view "everything sound sthe same" they are about the poorest citations possible. They are completely unscientific, anecdotal and in all cases from people who design/make speakers and their own sense of self value will make sure they consider speakers the most important part. A microphone designer/maker will contend his products are, the recording enginee3r will content his products are, the amplifier maker will contend his products are most important.
That is simple self aggrandisation and normal, but irelevant to the topic.
Now, do you care to actually support your contention with someing of substance that allows proof positive to said or will you just simply admit that what you contend is a mere irrotional prejudice, completely unprooven and not supported by reasonable argument IN ANY GREATER degree than the opposite position?
Sayonara
keyser said:
Actually, as it so happens I am quite familiar with them, due to his very interesting speaker designs for MacIntosh.
keyser said:
Yes, HE SHOULD know. But in reality things are rarely as they SHOULD be.
keyser said:
And therefore you and I should ignore any experiences of our own and simply adopt his view? I don't think so.
keyser said:
Then his definition of a "not well designed" amplifier wiould be one that sounds different. Or in other words he asserts that if you do exatcly what the majority does (which is often falsely considered good practice - usually it is not) you get the same sort of results the majority does.
That I actually agree completely with (the part that if you do the same as everyone else the results ar pretty much the same), but it does not help the issues any.
keyser said:
And they should know because they have huge amounts of experience designing amplifiers and digital sources....
keyser said:
Hey, all it says that it will be safe to use with any crud you care to use, they say nothing about the sound.
So, let me sumarise your position:
1) Your Prophet states a truism that you choose to widely misinterpret.
2) A Speaker making company claims all amp's and cd players sound the same. They provide nothing else to support their contention.
3) Another speaker company says their speakers will operate safely with any gear.
Now all three of your points are completely pointless noise. If you cite them as supporting your view "everything sound sthe same" they are about the poorest citations possible. They are completely unscientific, anecdotal and in all cases from people who design/make speakers and their own sense of self value will make sure they consider speakers the most important part. A microphone designer/maker will contend his products are, the recording enginee3r will content his products are, the amplifier maker will contend his products are most important.
That is simple self aggrandisation and normal, but irelevant to the topic.
Now, do you care to actually support your contention with someing of substance that allows proof positive to said or will you just simply admit that what you contend is a mere irrotional prejudice, completely unprooven and not supported by reasonable argument IN ANY GREATER degree than the opposite position?
Sayonara
you would say anything to make my reliable, expert source seem unreliable. You remember your own green cheese moon example?
You are now running in circles. He should know, but his view is different from your own, so he doesn't know.
Just think of it.
The designer of some of the so called "best sounding" amps ever made, says he doesn't know how to design an amp that sounds better than My First Sony.
Who says that? I consider him to be an expert in the field of hifi. His expert view is that there are rarely audible differences between amps. His findings are the same as mine. His expert views strenghten the assumptions I made after having done a few blind tests myself.
Do you really think it is absolutely neccesary to design you own amplifiers and digital sources to know anything about their quality? Does a car manufacturer have to re-invent and produce petrol to make a car?
The car manufacturer knows enough about the basic properties of the petrol that will be used in their cars engines, to make a good car engine.
The high tech loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers & Wilkins knows enough about the basic properties of the amplifiers and digital sources that will be used to drive their speakers, to make good drive units.
unhesitantly means that you do not have to hesitate...
If an amp determines sound quality, you SHOULD hesitate!
just stumbled upon the following
http://sound.westhost.com/whatis.htm
What does the on this site highly regarded Rod Elliot have to say about audible differences in hifi?
"At this stage I know that the three most important things in a stereo system are ...
1) the recorded material,
2) the speakers,
3) the room they are performing in."
I must have read this before... An example I used earlier in this thread is very similar to the one he uses here
http://sound.westhost.com/whatis.htm
What does the on this site highly regarded Rod Elliot have to say about audible differences in hifi?
"At this stage I know that the three most important things in a stereo system are ...
1) the recorded material,
2) the speakers,
3) the room they are performing in."
I must have read this before... An example I used earlier in this thread is very similar to the one he uses here
Name one thing that's special about Canton; how they distinguish themselves from the hurd of alike manufacturers, or how they put quality above looks and/or expected design features (looks&/technical) of the non-DIY/ThinkForYourself-customer.
http://www.canton.de/www/index.php4?pg_id=10,10,,1,en
Actually, since you mentioned Rod Elliott, he does offer quite a balanced discussion of amplifier issues, including load variability, output impedance, stability, clipping, sensitivity to cable characteristics, etc. All these factor into a "well sounding" amp. He also offers various different amp topologies on his site (why, if they all sound very close to each other?), and his comments on them sound along the lines of "this amplifier sounds particularly good" etc. - implying that some sound better than others under some circumstances.
Obviously if you define "well designed amp" = "good sounding amp" then we get away from arguing over what "better sounding" vs "worse sounding" means, towards what "competently designed" vs "not as competently designed" means. So, what does "competently designed" mean then? Since differences in the designs certainly exist, would you agree that potentially these differences in design could also mean they imply differences in competence of design? and that as a consequence, that they may sound different? Or would you claim that the diverse amp topologies could be called mostly equally competent, and invariably lead to sonically indistinguishible results?
Also for instance, one of Elliott's projects, P3A, has evolved into a commercial product offered by a company called AKSA. Hugh Dean, its owner, often contributes here and certainly does think that some amps can sound better than others. I have read many posts of his here and he comes across as a very earnest individual who truly thinks that some designs sound better than others. John Curl, Nelson Pass, and many other well known names also participate personally and at length in discussions on topologies and design on DIYaudio. Shrewd marketing and nothing else? Yes, these manufacturers have an interest in saying that theirs performs better than the next guys' , but how to explain then their passionate participation in discussions on these boards?
To me, the above means that amp designer generally don't agree over what a "competently designed" amp should look like, and offer different solutions and compromises. This reflects in different designs, and thus slightly different way of operation, and thus, possibly, possibly, different sound characteristics.
Obviously if you define "well designed amp" = "good sounding amp" then we get away from arguing over what "better sounding" vs "worse sounding" means, towards what "competently designed" vs "not as competently designed" means. So, what does "competently designed" mean then? Since differences in the designs certainly exist, would you agree that potentially these differences in design could also mean they imply differences in competence of design? and that as a consequence, that they may sound different? Or would you claim that the diverse amp topologies could be called mostly equally competent, and invariably lead to sonically indistinguishible results?
Also for instance, one of Elliott's projects, P3A, has evolved into a commercial product offered by a company called AKSA. Hugh Dean, its owner, often contributes here and certainly does think that some amps can sound better than others. I have read many posts of his here and he comes across as a very earnest individual who truly thinks that some designs sound better than others. John Curl, Nelson Pass, and many other well known names also participate personally and at length in discussions on topologies and design on DIYaudio. Shrewd marketing and nothing else? Yes, these manufacturers have an interest in saying that theirs performs better than the next guys' , but how to explain then their passionate participation in discussions on these boards?
To me, the above means that amp designer generally don't agree over what a "competently designed" amp should look like, and offer different solutions and compromises. This reflects in different designs, and thus slightly different way of operation, and thus, possibly, possibly, different sound characteristics.
In the following article...
http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm
Rod Elliot contemplates the objectivist and subjectivist view on amplifier sound. Even though he doesn't say it in such words, I think mr. Elliot to great extend shares himself to the objectivist camp. He also states similarly measuring amplifiers sound the same, as long as they are not driven into clipping. I think Rod Elliot is an intelligent man. It is very wise of him not to explicitly take either side, for it may scare some customers. Yes, remember that he is running a company too.
With the current state of technology a good amp can be built for not very much money. Most often used amp topologies deliver amps that measure good. A good measuring amp simply sounds good! Most not very good topologies have through time been discarded. For example, if tube amplifiers would have been as good as Solid State amps, the industrie would not have collectively made the great leap to solid state. Solid state devices lead to lower distortion, and higher power output at a lower price.
amps are like almost everything els designed on a design board. If the prototype measures as expected, the usual listening test is nothing but a formality.
John Curl and Nelson Pass design very beautiful amps... On a design board. Their amps have exemplary measurement results. I do not doubt their amps sound great too. Pass amps are usually able to deliver loads of current. They may sound better to most people, because they do not run into clipping as soon as many other amps do.
I've looked it up, just to be sure, and this is what Rod Elliot has to say about articles on his website that are written by others:
"The opinions expressed on these pages are primarily my own, and although some articles have been contributed, the content is substantially in agreement with my own ideas and beliefs."
http://sound.westhost.com/philosophy.htm
"The opinions expressed on these pages are primarily my own, and although some articles have been contributed, the content is substantially in agreement with my own ideas and beliefs."
http://sound.westhost.com/philosophy.htm
I agree with that.
Actaully I have seen many comments from amp designers that state the opposite. They say that a good sounding amp usually measures good. But a good measuring amp does not necessarily sound good. Which brings up the main problem with measurement: Each measurement gives a partial picture of amp performance. Though useful, it does not tell the whole picture.
Typical consumer gear would indeed fall in this category. But from my own meandering experience in DIY audio, and DIY woodworking etc, and from my more scholarly experience as a research scientist, I have to tell you that once you start experiments , many of your wishful design considerations go right out the window. And from the designers' comments here on this website, they assuredly listen very carefully. After all, the measurement only tries to give a quick, repeatable, andd reliable approximation of the listening experience.
But Nature does not behave like the models. The models give useful approximations, reality shows otherwise. If you measure for one parameter, and then for another, you will often get widely differing conclusions.
Solid state amps won out over tubes because the trade off of price, reliability and performance pleased the public. People choose trade offs, not absolute perfection. I see noting wrong with that, but commercial succes says nothing about technical perfection. Just as election results say nothing about who would have made the better government.
Actually, many Pass class A amps don't measure as well as typical consumer gear, and that by a factor of 1 to 10 in distortion *using the usual method, i.e. THD at rated power*. And here lies the crux: beyond a certain point, some methods, such as THD , especially at rated = full long term power, lose their predictive power. Distribution of distortion products, crossover distortion, IMD, etc., seem to matter a lot more than THD (once THD has reached a sufficiently low point). And over the last years many people, designers as well as researchers, have struggled to come up with better methods to correlate with listening experience. It just so happens that THD is nowadays easy to measure and to standardize, and well established.
Actually the clipping depends on the speaker-amp combination, and I don't see how and where users of Pass amps would systemically make better choices than users of mass produced consumer gear. In a typical listening environment, most consumer rated power amps will clip at some point - music has more dynamics than typical amps can deliver. Therefore many people consider the clipping behavior as an important quality factor in an amp.
Side note, I understand "clipping" as "voltage clipping"; current delivery usually poses far less problems (except for class A).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.