Kenji,
I do agree with Nico. Phase shift is important, but wrt harmonics this is not something anyone has ever put a figure on.
It can be simulated in measurement, and presumably measured on an instrument. However, it's likely to be inconclusive, and somewhat difficult.
Suffice to say that if the amp is good, you will hear it.....
Hugh
I do agree with Nico. Phase shift is important, but wrt harmonics this is not something anyone has ever put a figure on.
It can be simulated in measurement, and presumably measured on an instrument. However, it's likely to be inconclusive, and somewhat difficult.
Suffice to say that if the amp is good, you will hear it.....
Hugh
Ron, then you will really appreciate the '09' as this is what it does best so by all means talk to Hugh. The extra speed, slam etc or whatever other words one uses in attempting to describe the improvements could be instantly bypassed in a few minutes of actual listening, it just makes incredibly realistic music.
Hi Lyn,
Glad we got the discussion back on track! I'll wait for Hugh's latest... I have yet to build the loudspeakers that I feel befit my current Aspen Amp's talents best, let alone upgrade. Though the project Hugh refered to in an earlier post will give me some good insight (a tri-amped Seas Excel WMTMW design). This loudspeaker design will allow me to play around with small 2-ways to large 3 and 4 way combinations of great drivers. Unfortunately once the WMTMW is done it'll be shipped to Romania
Hugh,
As for "tripping the keyboard fantastic", it's what keeps me sane right now! This internet-business is great, though keep in mind that via satellite, in the middle of the ocean, it travels at speeds of 10Kb/Second... patience is a true virtue here! It warms the cockles when someone askes "why not google it". Who has the time!
Professor,
Great quote, THD, Harmonic Distorion, Fourier analysis etc. do only tell part of the picture. There are many, many facets. The SPICE analysis may tell you it's a bad-good-great circuit, it does indeed not depict the sound but it does give an indication. There are many, many, discussions about this online, right here on the different forums. Our ears, our personal preferences, psychological disposition etc. all play a role. Nothing beats putting the amp in your living room and listening to enjoy - or not...
At a recent DIY Audio gathering in Germany I listened to "Handel: Furore - Opera Arias" with Joyce DiDonato on a "Solovox - ECL82 Tube Amp" and it literally brought tears to my eyes. Judging by the technical limitations of both designs I can't imagine either would have measured well. This experience will remain with me for some time though...
Anyhoot, back to putting together those W's, T's and M's...
Francec,
Who is the 'Milky Bar Kid'?
I think I agree about the 'bizarrly politically correct world' we live in. That comment I endorse thoroughly.....
However, I think you could be a bit more circumspect. Robust discussion always means putting your point strongly but politely, with no implication that the protagonist is plain stupid or uneducated because he holds a diametrically opposed view. There is much to be said for relativism, because it gives robust debates some gracious endurance.
How about: Some say that objective, scientific measurement is the only way to assess amps. Some say only a listening test says it all. In favour of the former camp is the unquestioned truth that human senses, and hence perception, are unreliable; however, in favour of the second is the certain knowledge that music is an artform and perception, regardless of how unreliable it is, may have relevance particularly if taken over a large sample.
There is perhaps truth on both sides. How does that seem? Too weasel worded for you, perhaps?
Hugh
Who is the 'Milky Bar Kid'?
I think I agree about the 'bizarrly politically correct world' we live in. That comment I endorse thoroughly.....
However, I think you could be a bit more circumspect. Robust discussion always means putting your point strongly but politely, with no implication that the protagonist is plain stupid or uneducated because he holds a diametrically opposed view. There is much to be said for relativism, because it gives robust debates some gracious endurance.
How about: Some say that objective, scientific measurement is the only way to assess amps. Some say only a listening test says it all. In favour of the former camp is the unquestioned truth that human senses, and hence perception, are unreliable; however, in favour of the second is the certain knowledge that music is an artform and perception, regardless of how unreliable it is, may have relevance particularly if taken over a large sample.
There is perhaps truth on both sides. How does that seem? Too weasel worded for you, perhaps?
Hugh
Hugh, OTOH, you could have responded to the *contents* of his post rather than to what you regarded as incorrect form. Was it really required to come up with 'intellectual fascism' and argue facts with 'morality'?
How about: "Yes, my preference for a certain amp is personal and subjective, and my preference may be for an amp that objectively is not transparent and adds and/or subtracts from the input signal. I accept that. End of story."
jd
janneman,
Thank you for your post. I was in the middle of my response and was carefully considering my language because I have been 'whacked' with a forum infraction that could have me tossed out, based largely on language identical to that which I have used throughout my posting history.
The difference is, however, that a dislike or contrived offence has been found because I said what many others have said; human beings are very fallible (me very much included) and we ALL engage in self-deception. I said I do and cited an example but that I said it of other people is where the offence apparently is.
My point is, and remains; by all means say what you like or prefer with audio but, please, don't claim superiority of any apparatus unless objective testing can provide evidence.
Frank
Thank you for your post. I was in the middle of my response and was carefully considering my language because I have been 'whacked' with a forum infraction that could have me tossed out, based largely on language identical to that which I have used throughout my posting history.
The difference is, however, that a dislike or contrived offence has been found because I said what many others have said; human beings are very fallible (me very much included) and we ALL engage in self-deception. I said I do and cited an example but that I said it of other people is where the offence apparently is.
My point is, and remains; by all means say what you like or prefer with audio but, please, don't claim superiority of any apparatus unless objective testing can provide evidence.
Frank
Largely agree, although I'd add that subjective testing is also a good way to assess quality, as long as it is done under well controlled circumstances.
Francec, you must know that sadly, often you are attacked on your form rather than on your contents by those who have no counter-arguments to your contents. It would be very prudent to review your form several times before posting. It's pain, but necessary.
jd
jd,
I hate a world where "you are attacked on your form rather than on your contents" because, as you say, it is done by "those who have no counter-arguments to your contents". For a forum of people who, superficially, have an intelligence that should allow them to recognise, and prevail over, the absurdly patheticly weakness of ego.
Maybe, I should call a spade a shovel for those among us who can't handle a 'spade'.
Frank
ps. Why I received an infraction notice is an example of "ad hominem".
I hate a world where "you are attacked on your form rather than on your contents" because, as you say, it is done by "those who have no counter-arguments to your contents". For a forum of people who, superficially, have an intelligence that should allow them to recognise, and prevail over, the absurdly patheticly weakness of ego.
Maybe, I should call a spade a shovel for those among us who can't handle a 'spade'.
Frank
ps. Why I received an infraction notice is an example of "ad hominem".
Francec, I've been there. You still seem to suffer from the assumption that people here are interested in facts and learning. Most are not, most come here with a desire to Feel Good, through diy audio, and Hugh helps with that.
Nothing wrong with it, we all have our own areas where we go to Feel Good. But that also means there is no place for factual arguments.
Find a facts oriented thread here, there are lots, and enjoy the interaction.
jd
I'm so confused; I can't find a pigeonhole for myself...
- I agree that measured facts are important, but think that form and structure are important in communicating… a conformist?
- I don't believe that stating someone's rude means you have no counter arguments; it simply means you think they're rude… a literalist?
- I believe that being right does not mean you can forego on basic manners… a gentleman?
- I believe I can learn, be interested in facts, and feel good about DIY at the same time… a multi-tasker?
- I don't believe you can only learn from facts, you can also learn from experiences, opinions and even lies… a scholar?
- I believe great content is often overshadowed by poor form, but also believe esthetically pleasing form often camouflages poor content. .. a lecturer?
- I do believe we, as a society, have taken political correctness to an absurd level, but also that communicating in an 'inclusive' as opposed to 'exclusive' manner is preferred simply because it will entice more people to contribute… a sociologist?
- I believe collaborating can involve compromising, though it does not have to… a negotiator?
- I believe good measuring equipment can sound bad, I believe bad measuring equipment can sound good, under the circumstances… a relativist?
- I believe it is possible to bring your point, your truth, your facts, and your opinion across without discarding, violating, or insulting the input of others… well-raised?
- I believe that a balanced view on the different aspects of life is tantamount to strength, not weakness. It’s what oftentimes sets us apart from other animals… a Darwinist?
I wish you could have told our government this yesterday, before they broke down over form instead of content.
jd
We can usually consistently duplicate a measurement if we know the conditions, so they can be called fact, and they are very useful, but until there is a battery of scientifically valid blind tests that correlate objective measurements to what we hear, they are just measurements. Until such time as these correlations exist, objective measurements give no objective valuation of how something sounds.
So just as listening in a non-blind or poorly designed blind test, has to be suspect because of external influences, so do today's objective measurements carry just as little weight until such time as they can be correlated to what we hear.
Very little of any of that essential correlation exists, scientifically and statistically valid blind listening tests are not easy to set up, are time consuming (and therefore tend towards expensive) so we see few of them.
Leaves one in a real quandry, when it comes to evaluating the end result, what reaches our ears. We have a long way to go, and personally, i'm just going to strive to enjoy the music and do what i can to push forward my understanding of how to measure what we hear.
dave
I wish you could have told our government this yesterday, before they broke down over form instead of content.
jd
Too funny... touché
I do realize I'm a "right brain" person in a "left brain" forum, I'm fairly sure our ultimate goals have a lot of similarities though...
Back in to my pigeonhole
Jan, Francec, Ron,
I pretty much agree with all your recent postings, nothing to find fault with, including all of Ron's points.
Francec, I will not argue, and I see no real reason to justify my position with elaborate argument. It exhausts me, and I don't value my opinion so highly that I feel I can change anyone's attitudes or beliefs anyway. What is the point? In a cafe, confronted by the individual, I'm very happy to argue it all through, rigorously if necessary. But this medium is so devoid of proper communicative cues that it is, by default, malevolent, and any ambiguity is invariably taken the wrong way. I perceived that you had very strong beliefs, forged by a good education and a strong mind. There was no way I could change your mind, so I did not try. Instead I came down on your form because I wanted to stop the arguments since I could see they would rapidly become destructive. That is why I reacted as I did.
Now, if you wish to continue with this argument personally, I'd be delighted, and will even buy you endless coffee in my local cafe in Heidelberg. That is an offer sincerely made. If you decline the offer, I will understand. If you do not, doubtless you will be able to demonstrate to me your belief structure without risk of authoritarian closure. Providing, of course, that I'm reading you correctly, and this is what you would like.
Further, I have been in touch with the mods, and your infraction has been graciously withdrawn. This was not my doing - the demerit was not my decision you understand - but because of some anger on the mods part that I accused you of 'intellectual fascism'. Because I was not awarded demerits, arguably in error, the decision was taken to give you the same benefit of doubt. That's balance, ain't it?
This is the reason I remain deeply involved in this forum after nine years. It is fair, it is moderated by good people, and it is very interesting technically.
In the past, whenever these conflicts have arisen, I have endeavoured to make myself personally available for discussion, so that the benefit of face to face contact can be enjoyed on both sides. I find people are so much more sociable in a face to face meeting. In one case where I made such an offer, the invitation was rejected out of hand with gratuitous insults, so I fomed the conclusion that the original purpose was to make a fool out of me publicly. In this sense, of course, my offer to you is a screening process which, given the nature of forums and the anonymity of the keyboard, you will doubtless understand. I hope this does not discourage you.
Clearly, I am happy to be shown as a fool, but I would prefer it face to face, in private, not in a forum, particularly not MY forum!!
So, Sir, the offer stands. You know where to contact me. If you decline, I will say nothing, of course. That is only fair.
Jan, no more stupid than the amusing charade played out in Copenhagen recently!
Cheers,
Hugh
I pretty much agree with all your recent postings, nothing to find fault with, including all of Ron's points.
Francec, I will not argue, and I see no real reason to justify my position with elaborate argument. It exhausts me, and I don't value my opinion so highly that I feel I can change anyone's attitudes or beliefs anyway. What is the point? In a cafe, confronted by the individual, I'm very happy to argue it all through, rigorously if necessary. But this medium is so devoid of proper communicative cues that it is, by default, malevolent, and any ambiguity is invariably taken the wrong way. I perceived that you had very strong beliefs, forged by a good education and a strong mind. There was no way I could change your mind, so I did not try. Instead I came down on your form because I wanted to stop the arguments since I could see they would rapidly become destructive. That is why I reacted as I did.
Now, if you wish to continue with this argument personally, I'd be delighted, and will even buy you endless coffee in my local cafe in Heidelberg. That is an offer sincerely made. If you decline the offer, I will understand. If you do not, doubtless you will be able to demonstrate to me your belief structure without risk of authoritarian closure. Providing, of course, that I'm reading you correctly, and this is what you would like.
Further, I have been in touch with the mods, and your infraction has been graciously withdrawn. This was not my doing - the demerit was not my decision you understand - but because of some anger on the mods part that I accused you of 'intellectual fascism'. Because I was not awarded demerits, arguably in error, the decision was taken to give you the same benefit of doubt. That's balance, ain't it?
This is the reason I remain deeply involved in this forum after nine years. It is fair, it is moderated by good people, and it is very interesting technically.
In the past, whenever these conflicts have arisen, I have endeavoured to make myself personally available for discussion, so that the benefit of face to face contact can be enjoyed on both sides. I find people are so much more sociable in a face to face meeting. In one case where I made such an offer, the invitation was rejected out of hand with gratuitous insults, so I fomed the conclusion that the original purpose was to make a fool out of me publicly. In this sense, of course, my offer to you is a screening process which, given the nature of forums and the anonymity of the keyboard, you will doubtless understand. I hope this does not discourage you.
Clearly, I am happy to be shown as a fool, but I would prefer it face to face, in private, not in a forum, particularly not MY forum!!
So, Sir, the offer stands. You know where to contact me. If you decline, I will say nothing, of course. That is only fair.
Jan, no more stupid than the amusing charade played out in Copenhagen recently!
Cheers,
Hugh
Last edited:
Hi Hugh,
Good to see the this thread back in business. I'm still enjoying my "late Lifeforce - early Soraya" tremendously. I can't wait to hook up the latest acquisition, unfortunately I'm still in Prague expanding on my language skills... torture!
When can I have my first taste of your coffee?
Groetjes,
Ron
Good to see the this thread back in business. I'm still enjoying my "late Lifeforce - early Soraya" tremendously. I can't wait to hook up the latest acquisition, unfortunately I'm still in Prague expanding on my language skills... torture!
When can I have my first taste of your coffee?
Groetjes,
Ron
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.