Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, this reminds me of where so much thinking in hifi circles goes "wrong", for me - it's the focus on the adding of "goodness", in this case that having good amplification "helps" the quality. From my perspective, it's that the 'correctness' of the sound is not hampered by the CD player having overly obvious flaws.

And, in the same vein, that the BB2134 suddenly sound "good". I see it as the opamps being very precise in their operation, but if used or implemented wrongly then they perform poorly, and/or highlight deficiencies elsewhere in the component

Sorry Dejan, :(, ;) ...

I'll be damned if I know what all that means.

I am amazed at how easily you draw wrong conclusions, Frank, which are at best, doubtful conclusions. You have no idea how and where those op amps were used, yet you assume they are right and everything else is wrong. Not going to happen.

Neither do I, because despite efforts, thus far I was unable to get hold of its service manual, and until I do, I have no comments except for those related to what I hear.

For the life of me, I cannot remember a single op amp I have come across which I have not heard implemented right, providing quality sound, and wrong, leaving the sound lacking one way or another. Just in case you haven't noticed, people seem to think that using op amps is easy and does not require any special care, what the hell, just throw in an NFB loop and that's it. Well, that's not it, except by a sheer fluke.

The only obvious thing I do know at this point is that NAD did take more care than usual, run-off-the-mill fare to a level when I was no longer able to recognize the particular chatracter of sound as I usually do in case of that op amp. That's it. In many cases before, I was actually able to identify that particular op amp's sound, usually a bit shrill and lacking bass drive. Not here.

So by "good", I mean with no audible shortcomings, clean and clear.
 
Last edited:

These group sessions are a plain nonsense in case you are interested in subtle differences. You may make a nice test with 2 - 3 people sitting in a "sweet spot" and you may use amplifiers in "black boxes", perfectly matched in amplitude, without problems, people will tell you differences. Make a large group test with 30 - 50 people and the test is unusable. Clark's tests are biased.
 
On cables/interconnects.

It's true that not all silver cabels were made the same, and thus do not sound the same.

The best interconnect cable I have come across so far is a silver plated OFC cable from Neotech. I don't know its manufacturer designation, as the guy I get them from uses his own nomenclature.

The second best is also from Neotech, but it's a pure OFC cable. Truth be told, it costs half the price of the silver plated version and sounds just a wee bit poorer, in the sense that it conveys spatial information not as well as its costlier sibling. Very slight difference, you really have to hunt for it using the best source material you have.

If you are a cable guy, I feel certain you probably have heard them, but in another colour, with different designations of the model, with a different label and at a different price, since Neotech supplies OEM cables to quite a number of companies.

The only cable we (a friend and I) did measure was one of their power cables, against Ecosse's Big Red. And, sure enough, nothing was different to a level greater than 1 %, the C, the R and the L, The only difference was the colour (red obviously, original is black), the manufacturer's label and of course the price, tteh Ecosse cost almost exactly 4 times the price.
 
These group sessions are a plain nonsense in case you are interested in subtle differences. You may make a nice test with 2 - 3 people sitting in a "sweet spot" and you may use amplifiers in "black boxes", perfectly matched in amplitude, without problems, people will tell you differences. Make a large group test with 30 - 50 people and the test is unusable. Clark's tests are biased.

Agreed.
 
I was surprised to get the TL084 opamps in my active speaker sounding very good. They're not normally regarded as having audiophile credentials but it can be done. The secret is keeping power supply noise very low - opamps run in classB so biassing them into classA is a big part of the recipe. Dejan has already mentioned how much better opamps sound with a CCS on the output, a resistor also works fine.

I must have a play with 2134s....

It isn't always true. Try it both ways. I think at very low levels it is very possible all devices work in class A if the load is small and voltage swing also low. My theory is nearly all have crude biasing arrangements that have some surplus bias current ( 1 mA ? ). You will if doing the 741 trick sometimes find the type of sound a little different and perhaps eupohonic. LM324 is very much better with a CCS, almost to the point of being OK.

The favourite with 741 was an input pair of 2N4403 ( or was it 4401) and the CCS output. This gave an OK microphone stage which have been used on good recordings. Some studios may still use this, my friend John still sees them in use. The 2N4403's will self bias to the input stage and not change the DC offset much. Input current will be higher. Johns view is the adapted 741 is good enough to debate microphone types. John would say a Shure via the best in the world verses the Neumann ribbon and the Neumann always wins by a wide margin.
 
These group sessions are a plain nonsense in case you are interested in subtle differences. You may make a nice test with 2 - 3 people sitting in a "sweet spot" and you may use amplifiers in "black boxes", perfectly matched in amplitude, without problems, people will tell you differences. Make a large group test with 30 - 50 people and the test is unusable. Clark's tests are biased.

You can do the test by yourself, taking as much or as little time as you want, with as many or as few people as you want. The only important thing is that you're actually only using your ears to validate these claims of sonic differences.

As long as the thread contains only anecdotal, sighted "stories" about people extolling the virtues of some types of cable materials, it's academic value is actually less than zero, as not only is there not any useful information, but what is passed off in it's absence can only be willful dissemination of false information, a fairly serious scientific crime, which should be looked at with disdain, as long as proof is viewed as the enemy.

It would be nice if people who made claims about the sonic attributes of different types of metals would actually care about ensuring that the google-able information that flows from their fingertips onto internet forums is actually true and verifiable.

It's embarrassing...and a little sad, that in an otherwise scientific forum where people are quite obviously capable of producing real data because they understand it's value, will quickly eschew proper (or any) tests..and even attack those who suggest doing them, instead of perpetually bathing in the communal verbarrhea, in some kind of self-deprecating effort to protect their illusions.

I would really like to know why some people seem to take no pride in even attempting to ensure that what they post online for everyone to see has some factual value. Five or six guys wagging their tongues about silver RCA cables versus copper ones is just about as close as you can get to informational cancer and should be treated with every bit of disdain a proper follower of the scientific method can afford.
 
I'll be damned if I know what all that means.

I am amazed at how easily you draw wrong conclusions, Frank, which are at best, doubtful conclusions. You have no idea how and where those op amps were used, yet you assume they are right and everything else is wrong. Not going to happen.
Well, Dejan, I'm just as confused by your response, :D. You're saying essentially the same thing as I did - that how an opamp, just considered as a part, is used in a circuit can make or break the sound. If the manufacturer takes extra care, as apparently NAD did, then everything's fine; if that part is used without proper understanding of its characteristics, carelessly, then you might get your "a bit shrill and lacking bass drive".

IOW, I don't see audio as a world of "good" and "not so good" or even "bad" parts - my perspective is that almost any combination of bits and pieces will deliver satisfactory sound IF they are handled, used with understanding and a willingness to use a bit of lateral thinking to get good behaviour.

As an example, I have little inclination towards building the "best" or a "perfect" amplifier - vastly more interesting is having a unit which sounds daggy, and determining why it is that way, and how to "fix" it ... my perspective is that of the troubleshooter ...
 
Clark's tests are biased.

You can "understand" his quality by the way he answered below question:

Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp?

No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping.

If you have a choice between a well built reliable low cost amp, and an expensive amplifier that isn't reliable but has a better reputation for sound quality, it can be inferred from this test that you would get more sound for your money by choosing the former.
 
Make a large group test with 30 - 50 people and the test is unusable. Clark's tests are biased.

Nowhere is a 30-50 person group stated as being required. The test are indeed biased- they eliminate identification by peeking, so they're biased toward only detecting audible differences.

Richard Clark said:
peter----it is true that at least a couple thousand folks have taken the test--------in the early years it was widely believed that the differences were so obvious that it could be done in a room full of people with a home system----and we did many tests like this------at A2000 seminars and private manufacturer seminars where we were paid to do them for selected installers------and even once at the MES show in Atlanta-------of course it quickly became obvious (or at least that became the popular excuse) that any differences that might exist were not so easy to pick out-----doing tests like this really racked up the numbers------the last time we did a large test was about 1995/96 or so-----eventually we started only doing one or two people at a time and even then it still supported the same results-----
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
You can do the test by yourself, taking as much or as little time as you want, with as many or as few people as you want. The only important thing is that you're actually only using your ears to validate these claims of sonic differences.

As long as the thread contains only anecdotal, sighted "stories" about people extolling the virtues of some types of cable materials, it's academic value is actually less than zero, as not only is there not any useful information, but what is passed off in it's absence can only be willful dissemination of false information, a fairly serious scientific crime, which should be looked at with disdain, as long as proof is viewed as the enemy.

It would be nice if people who made claims about the sonic attributes of different types of metals would actually care about ensuring that the google-able information that flows from their fingertips onto internet forums is actually true and verifiable.

It's embarrassing...and a little sad, that in an otherwise scientific forum where people are quite obviously capable of producing real data because they understand it's value, will quickly eschew proper (or any) tests..and even attack those who suggest doing them, instead of perpetually bathing in the communal verbarrhea, in some kind of self-deprecating effort to protect their illusions.

I would really like to know why some people seem to take no pride in even attempting to ensure that what they post online for everyone to see has some factual value. Five or six guys wagging their tongues about silver RCA cables versus copper ones is just about as close as you can get to informational cancer and should be treated with every bit of disdain a proper follower of the scientific method can afford.

I wish you wouldn't write these posts. I have now a fairly comprehensive ignore list that spares me these nonsensical posts, but now you describe it and I start to wonder what I missed....:confused:
Bummer.

Jan
 
Well, Dejan, I'm just as confused by your response, :D. You're saying essentially the same thing as I did - that how an opamp, just considered as a part, is used in a circuit can make or break the sound. If the manufacturer takes extra care, as apparently NAD did, then everything's fine; if that part is used without proper understanding of its characteristics, carelessly, then you might get your "a bit shrill and lacking bass drive".

IOW, I don't see audio as a world of "good" and "not so good" or even "bad" parts - my perspective is that almost any combination of bits and pieces will deliver satisfactory sound IF they are handled, used with understanding and a willingness to use a bit of lateral thinking to get good behaviour.

As an example, I have little inclination towards building the "best" or a "perfect" amplifier - vastly more interesting is having a unit which sounds daggy, and determining why it is that way, and how to "fix" it ... my perspective is that of the troubleshooter ...

The above text makes me wonder what your initial reply was in aid of, as it seems we agree, which does surprise me that it took you so long to get that. After all, I have said on numerous occasions that parts are just that, parts, and if selected carefully for the job they are to do, the trick is not in using this or that part, but in making them work together in as much harmony as possible.

Applies equally to all types of devices - tubes, BJTs, FETs, MOSFETS and op amps.

But, never mind, the main thing is that we do agree in principle.
 
You can do the test by yourself, taking as much or as little time as you want, with as many or as few people as you want. The only important thing is that you're actually only using your ears to validate these claims of sonic differences.

As long as the thread contains only anecdotal, sighted "stories" about people extolling the virtues of some types of cable materials, it's academic value is actually less than zero, as not only is there not any useful information, but what is passed off in it's absence can only be willful dissemination of false information, a fairly serious scientific crime, which should be looked at with disdain, as long as proof is viewed as the enemy.

It would be nice if people who made claims about the sonic attributes of different types of metals would actually care about ensuring that the google-able information that flows from their fingertips onto internet forums is actually true and verifiable.

It's embarrassing...and a little sad, that in an otherwise scientific forum where people are quite obviously capable of producing real data because they understand it's value, will quickly eschew proper (or any) tests..and even attack those who suggest doing them, instead of perpetually bathing in the communal verbarrhea, in some kind of self-deprecating effort to protect their illusions.

I would really like to know why some people seem to take no pride in even attempting to ensure that what they post online for everyone to see has some factual value. Five or six guys wagging their tongues about silver RCA cables versus copper ones is just about as close as you can get to informational cancer and should be treated with every bit of disdain a proper follower of the scientific method can afford.

And, pray tell, what scientific value have you contributed? A link to a test I personally consider to be next to worthless in objective terms? Do you REALLY think some of us haven't done things like that 35+ years ago, and that we speak of uselessness only because we have found such tests to be just that?

If you want to discover new fields, buy tons of measuring gear, sit back and measure for days on end.

A DIY forum is supposed to be scientific? Wow! Next thing we learn is that posts here should be counted as papers. Please, give us a break. This forum is supposed to fun, and anything above that, while desirable is simply extra profit.

I for example like to ask a question here and there and benefit from the collective exprience of forum members. The answers will generally include some statistical data, some hard science and lots of experience from those who have been there and done that.

If hard science is what you're after, read IEEE, AES and similar sites and forums, if they have them.
 
I feel listening test were designed mostly to force people to accept measurement proves all approach to design. The people who refuse to buy are dissidents and they should be made to conform. For that reason alone I distrust them.

I hate many things I design and would never allow them to get outside of my workshop. Mostly I don't know why. What I do know is they are not good enough. I designed a near perfect class A amp. It is somehow not very good. It measures great. I will return to it and find out why one day. It can not be far from what would sound good. The valve design I made afterwards was the opposite. Nothing much on paper except it was to the rules I like. It was perhaps at least double what I hoped for and they were already ambitious hopes. It was to cost nothing and be better than the majority of 300 B amps I have heard. It was easily that. I must point out I am mostly a skeptic when valves. It was only to know the truth that I built it. That is a truth learned, not received by reading. It has been an enriching experience.

If thinking I prefer distortion. Two of my favourite amps have almost none.
 
Last edited:
Disabled Account
Joined 2004
I feel listening test were designed mostly to force people to accept measurement proves all approach to design.

This comment presupposes a lot, sort of admitting defeat before the fact. You guys say a lot but don't put together a very compelling argument.

You can't follow your muse and succeed in a listening test?
 
Last edited:
Here's my bottom line: Subjective analysis is just that: subjective. Opinion. It is very meaningful to the person stating their opinion, but it is meaningless to anyone else. Objective measurements are just that: objective. Given the same conditions they will always be repeatable. The results of objective testing are meaningful to everyone who can reproduce the conditions. SO, use objective tests to evaluate baselines, use subjective tests to decide what you like. But don't ascribe cause and effect based on subjective testing alone because you can't assume your opinion will be the same as anyone else. Cause and effect can only be determined by objective analysis: and if objective analysis shows no cause, the effect being reported is happening due to the listener's perception, and it is an opinion not a fact.
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Here's my bottom line: Subjective analysis is just that: subjective. Opinion. It is very meaningful to the person stating their opinion, but it is meaningless to anyone else. Objective measurements are just that: objective. Given the same conditions they will always be repeatable. The results of objective testing are meaningful to everyone who can reproduce the conditions. SO, use objective tests to evaluate baselines, use subjective tests to decide what you like. But don't ascribe cause and effect based on subjective testing alone because you can't assume your opinion will be the same as anyone else. Cause and effect can only be determined by objective analysis: and if objective analysis shows no cause, the effect being reported is happening due to the listener's perception, and it is an opinion not a fact.

+ a bunch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.