Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
...all amplifiers of adequate quality sound the same when used within their capabilities

Again, that's a qualified statement (and the way it's worded, rather tautological). It is NOT "all amps sound the same."

This seems to be a difficult concept.:confused:

We know what he means, surely.

The statement has to be qualified in advance to stop people from simply saying "Well obviously this Sanyo music centre doesn't sound the same as this Krell." How could Peter Walker have worded it to get any closer to a real, practical "All amps sound the same"?
 
Not difficult, possibly too easy.

I think most don't like the idea of 'good enough'. That is, It does it's job and doesn't add anything noticable. Then it's an amplifier. If it does add something to the sound, like a tube amp that adds "warmth" (whatever that means?), it's not just an amp, it's an amp+effect box.

The list of amps that meets this criteria -

"high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise"

would include just about every inexpensive receiver or integrated, basic amp made and sold in big electronics stores from maybe 1975 on to present day.

So if someone is a purveyor of this philosophy that states all amps that meet these qualifications, when used within limits, all sound the same...

They are very close to, in essence, saying "all amps sound the same". If you like numbers, it would probably mean 99.99% of the amplifiers made and sold for the last 35 years meet the above criteria. This logic would extend to 99.99% of all amps sound the same.
...why am I even typing this? it is so obviously silly.
 
Last edited:
The list of amps that meets this criteria -

"high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise"

would include just about every inexpensive receiver or integrated, basic amp made and sold in big electronics stores from maybe 1975 on to present day.

So if someone is a purveyor of this philosophy that states all amps that meet these qualifications, when used within limits, all sound the same...

They are very close to, in essence, saying "all amps sound the same". If you like numbers, it would probably mean 99.99% of the amplifiers made and sold for the last 35 years meet the above criteria. This logic would extend to 99.99% of all amps sound the same.
...why am I even typing this? it is so obviously silly.

I'm actually surprised how simplistically silly it is... i'm taken aback.

We know how good an amp needs to be to be acceptable for specific purposes, boom box amp vs pro-sound amp. I suppose that the search for the "better" amp is really the search for the amp that incorporates the effects that evoke an emotional response, for example 'warm' sound could be relaxing. This could be found by letting a test group have some effects equipment and see what they come up with. Then quantify that sound profile and integrate into an amp.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
I suppose that the search for the "better" amp is really the search for the amp that incorporates the effects that evoke an emotional response, for example 'warm' sound could be relaxing.
That's only one dimension, and an overused one, at that. There are many other qualities that are sought after and heard in amp - real or imagined. The old "effects box" and "tube warmth" clichés are pretty tired. Not to say they don't exist, but they are far from a complete picture.
 
Yeah I liked your ideas. We could do with some way to measure sensitivity to interference on input grounds and on speaker and power leads. Not sure how to quantify those effects but I reckon they're important. Perhaps the CE tests for fast transient immunity would be a start, but they need to be conducted while playing a real signal, preferably music, and the input and outputs diff'd.
Bill Whitlock has written about a test he came up with, injecting a 60Hz current between an input's ground connection and the chassis, and measuring how much of it appears on the output. This was specifically to measure ability to reject ground loop currents, but no doubt the idea can be expanded to RF susceptibility as well.
Too true. A few nights ago, I had a long conversation with a recording engineer about my mike preamp. He just couldn't "get" the notion of a box of gain that simply amplified without coloring or why in the world someone would want to build such a thing.
Of course not, that's not how recordings (or even live) work. Mics and preamps are chosen for their "sound". They are tools to achieve and end, an artistic end. If that were not the case, all you'd ever need would be a pair of B&K measurement mics. Record anything and everything with those.

Photographers use filters, odd exposures, Photoshop and printing tweaks to achieve the look they want. Straight forward photos are often pretty boring.
I've seen it all (or so it seems, and heard a lot) on rec.audio.pro. Market it as having the "SY signature sound." If someone finds the sound too boring or whatever, say it also works well with a transformer on the input and/or output.

And something that most people know, different pre input impedances change the sound of dynamic micrphones. Add an input impedance switch and label it "tone" or "coloration select."

I take that back. Make two models, one with higher input impedance than the other. Sell them as two different "flavors."
 
Resistive Channel B loading of an input shorted channel A through 8ohms

Has anybody tried this test by Nelson Pass on a PP tube amp? Perhaps a way to measure/ monitor tweaks of the Global feedback loop?
 

Attachments

  • Pass distortion test.gif
    Pass distortion test.gif
    44.1 KB · Views: 131
Status
Not open for further replies.