yldouright,
As you specifically seek to optimize soundstaging, one area is the directionality of the various cables internal to your amplifier (as well as those interfacing externally). Specifically, I've found both signal level, stranded shielded twisted pair (STP) [that directionality of STP is separate from any changes caused by where a telescoping shield is attached with single ended signals], as well as some standard UL, CSA triad power cordage to be directional wrt to subjective height portrayal.
The late, great, Bob Crump asserted in 2000 that wire is directional which he said he learned of from instructions accompanying Wonder Wire. He discussed those additional subjective benefits gained by proper directional implementation.
Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Height portrayal from specific recordings, allow us to objectively measure a subjective perception of angle. All it takes is an (in)clinometer and the proper recording. I use Holly Cole's I can see clearly now. This is a metric not subject to issues of aural memory. FWIW, YMMV
As you specifically seek to optimize soundstaging, one area is the directionality of the various cables internal to your amplifier (as well as those interfacing externally). Specifically, I've found both signal level, stranded shielded twisted pair (STP) [that directionality of STP is separate from any changes caused by where a telescoping shield is attached with single ended signals], as well as some standard UL, CSA triad power cordage to be directional wrt to subjective height portrayal.
The late, great, Bob Crump asserted in 2000 that wire is directional which he said he learned of from instructions accompanying Wonder Wire. He discussed those additional subjective benefits gained by proper directional implementation.
Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Height portrayal from specific recordings, allow us to objectively measure a subjective perception of angle. All it takes is an (in)clinometer and the proper recording. I use Holly Cole's I can see clearly now. This is a metric not subject to issues of aural memory. FWIW, YMMV
In general, yes, as do most people.
In describing the merits of an amplifier, no.
Nobody can even prove that amplifiers exhibit these qualities, or lack therof, so until that can happen...which it can't because it's silly, talking about a device having qualities it can not possibly have unless it's broken, does about as much good as licking amplifier face plates and talking about how they taste.
I would certainly add amplifier output Z, frequency dependence to my earlier post
since I mostly play with high global feedback the amp output Z is generally low enough where we can hear it with dynamic drivers
at a minimum amp frequency response, output Z/load interaction should be well below:
ABX Amplitude vs. Frequency Matching Criteria
since I mostly play with high global feedback the amp output Z is generally low enough where we can hear it with dynamic drivers
at a minimum amp frequency response, output Z/load interaction should be well below:
ABX Amplitude vs. Frequency Matching Criteria
I'm in healthcare, so I'll use a healthcare analogy. The OP's argument is like the difference between a FDA approved drug versus the "all-natural-can-cure-all" over the counter supplement. One goes through a rigorous testing process following a scientific method, while the other's wild claims are just that, wild claims. I'm unsubscribed.
Then bug out. Why keep posting here? A lot of this stuff does exist and has some very good technical reasons why.
How well the amp performs into the load it's driving has a lot to do with its "voice". Many amps claim to be perfect, few are in real world use. IME, the power supply usually has a lot to do with it.
Then of course one could voice an amp to have a particular sound. A thought that will cause cold chills and nightmares in the straight-laced engineering types.
To my ears, MacIntosh tubes amps are voiced warm and glowing. Fun, pleasant, but not really neutral. Sells a lot of amps, tho. And why not? Isn't the point to enjoy what you are listening to? Or are home stereos meant to be lab equipment?
I think there's many shades of gray in there, it's not one way or the other.
I tend to lean more toward "lab equipment" because what I'm trying to enjoy is on the other side of the equipment, much the same way I prefer my window in my room to be transparent, rather than tinted my favorite color of blue.
As Pano implied, one can either aim for an amplifier which merely makes a small signal larger with no other audible effect or build an amp to be an effects box. I prefer the former, and that's a problem solved decades ago. So for my target... no, I have not heard any better-quality amps, since well-designed amps are audibly transparent.
If you're looking for an effects box, then "voicing" has a more sensible meaning. But IMO, it's often easier to achieve the same effects using other means.
Sy
An accurate reproduction has to account for the different auditory environments of the recording and the playback so having a completely truth telling amp will make certain important recordings sound less enjoyable in your home. Please accept that a buyer of an audio system is often not aware of this when they put down their money to choose. Wouldn't it be great if their choice most closely reflected their listening preferences?
Pano
Yes, there is a very strong correlation between the quality of the power supply and that of the amps ability to reproduce the sound but what I am aiming to achieve is way for audiophiles and engineers to communicate better. That is the whole point of my framework and this thread. I'd like a world where you can select an audio system based on how you expect it produce your music, Some users love sharply defined, almost etched out instruments and are willing to sacrifice other sonic attributes to get this. There will be those who prefer timbrel perfection and will live with some slight slurring if the music is tonally perfect. Still others will demand the emotive content and let the rest be damned. Wouldn't it be great if we could pinpoint what electrical attributes correspond to the sonic attributes I put forward on this thread. We are not talking orders of magnitude in difference but nuances of emphasis.
hongrn
I'm not against rigorous testing but I am against rigorous dogma.
cliffforest
They all can't be pearls cliffy but this one might be
jcx, pmkap
You guys seem to understand what I am trying to do and I thank you for it. I will assume that some of the audio giants have been reading this thread and if they haven't called foul on the three descriptive elements of sound by now, we are one step closer to sub-categorizing and accepting them as postulates. In the next step we will try correlating their electrical attributes.
An accurate reproduction has to account for the different auditory environments of the recording and the playback so having a completely truth telling amp will make certain important recordings sound less enjoyable in your home. Please accept that a buyer of an audio system is often not aware of this when they put down their money to choose. Wouldn't it be great if their choice most closely reflected their listening preferences?
Pano
Yes, there is a very strong correlation between the quality of the power supply and that of the amps ability to reproduce the sound but what I am aiming to achieve is way for audiophiles and engineers to communicate better. That is the whole point of my framework and this thread. I'd like a world where you can select an audio system based on how you expect it produce your music, Some users love sharply defined, almost etched out instruments and are willing to sacrifice other sonic attributes to get this. There will be those who prefer timbrel perfection and will live with some slight slurring if the music is tonally perfect. Still others will demand the emotive content and let the rest be damned. Wouldn't it be great if we could pinpoint what electrical attributes correspond to the sonic attributes I put forward on this thread. We are not talking orders of magnitude in difference but nuances of emphasis.
hongrn
I'm not against rigorous testing but I am against rigorous dogma.
cliffforest
They all can't be pearls cliffy but this one might be
jcx, pmkap
You guys seem to understand what I am trying to do and I thank you for it. I will assume that some of the audio giants have been reading this thread and if they haven't called foul on the three descriptive elements of sound by now, we are one step closer to sub-categorizing and accepting them as postulates. In the next step we will try correlating their electrical attributes.
Last edited:
I don't believe that it was solved decades ago, and have not seen or heard proof of that. If it had been solved, then my guess is that all amps that aim at neutrality would be of the same topology. They aren't. Amps that aim to color the sound would be different, of course.
I will admit that most amps sound a lot alike on most speakers. But not everyone chooses 2 way monkey coffins or planar speakers.
Much of what I hear (I think) is power supply differences. Swapping out the power supply can have a big effect on the sound of an amp. Meaning that they aren't perfect, or they would sound the same. Since it isn't easy to swap out power supplies on many amps not a lot of people are aware of these differences. The DIY crowd should be ahead of everyone else in this matter.
Speakers make a vastly bigger difference than amps. But amps can and do sound different - even those considered blameless.
The PRAT thing is funny, partly because if its name, but also because most people think "How could an amp make a difference to THAT?" A couple of years back I read a very good technical explanation of the effect, but of course I'll never find it again.
Why would you expect that? There's a lot of different ways to make a quiet, flat, low distortion, low source impedance amp, and different engineers have taken different paths to the same result.
Clearly they are not.
That generous offer has been accepted and the answer was they are meaningless.
Of course, you can repost them lots of times and eventually *somebody* in this great Forum will agree with you.
Wait a second ... looks like that has already happened
OK, what do you suggest now, we take a vote?
WRONG, the one who proposes extraordinary thesis is the one who carries the burden of the proof.
Which in this case would be Mr Yldoyouright .
+1.
When I started fiddling with amps I was rather sceptical that power supplies would be so important to amps. The evidence presented by listening overcame my prior scepticism. ISTM from experiments with various chipamps that power supply impedance is crucial, I get a more satisfying sound from a stiffer supply. Most amp's supplies aren't particularly low impedance in the LF region (at 50Hz a 3300uF cap is around 1ohm - few amps have >10X this capacitance on their rails).
Given the same supply I was also gobsmacked by how much difference to the PRaT was made by going to classD from classB. Then I had a minor 'lightbulb' moment and realized its probably caused by classD making so much better use of the power supply. Having a switching output stage means the average current drawn from the supply is greatly reduced, reducing the associated sag. Going to classD then has the effect of multiplying up the rail capacitance seen by the amp.
My hypothesis is the 'PRaT' is related to how much noise is sent back into the supply caps by the output stage switching currents.
Last edited:
JMFaghey
Welcome to my humble thread. I will assume that you have read the entire thread so I will ask you some questions based on the content up to this point to gauge the level of your cynicism. Do humor them:
Does PRAT exist in music?
On a recording and playback of music, does PRAT become represented by an electrical signal?
Are the electrical signals representing PRAT processed by an amplification circuit and delivered to a loudspeaker?
Given your replies, is it unreasonable to make a logical assumption that different amplifier configurations (ie: power supplies, devices, circuits and topologies) might have different effects on this sonic attribute?
Would you agree that music is generally made with instruments and performers that have unique sonic signatures?
Would you agree that these sonic signatures are fairly complex frequency waveforms that are difficult, if not downright impossible to duplicate synthetically?
Isn't it rather subjective that a typical engineer believes duplicating a single frequency waveform accurately guarantees that multiple simultaneous complex waveforms of varying levels will also be produced accurately?
Do you have a better terminology than timbrel accuracy to describe the reproduction of these multiple simultaneous complex waveforms?
Are you familiar with wind (the regular kind, not the kind that comes from intellectual haughtiness)?
How do you know it's real?
Did you make any suppositions reaching this conclusion?
Are you basing your proof of wind on these suppositions?
No further questions your honor.
Welcome to my humble thread. I will assume that you have read the entire thread so I will ask you some questions based on the content up to this point to gauge the level of your cynicism. Do humor them:
Does PRAT exist in music?
On a recording and playback of music, does PRAT become represented by an electrical signal?
Are the electrical signals representing PRAT processed by an amplification circuit and delivered to a loudspeaker?
Given your replies, is it unreasonable to make a logical assumption that different amplifier configurations (ie: power supplies, devices, circuits and topologies) might have different effects on this sonic attribute?
Would you agree that music is generally made with instruments and performers that have unique sonic signatures?
Would you agree that these sonic signatures are fairly complex frequency waveforms that are difficult, if not downright impossible to duplicate synthetically?
Isn't it rather subjective that a typical engineer believes duplicating a single frequency waveform accurately guarantees that multiple simultaneous complex waveforms of varying levels will also be produced accurately?
Do you have a better terminology than timbrel accuracy to describe the reproduction of these multiple simultaneous complex waveforms?
Are you familiar with wind (the regular kind, not the kind that comes from intellectual haughtiness)?
How do you know it's real?
Did you make any suppositions reaching this conclusion?
Are you basing your proof of wind on these suppositions?
No further questions your honor.
Last edited:
You don't "voice" "an amplifier and or audio playback system" - you aim to reduce the level of disturbing, audible distortion ... if you do that with insight and understanding then excellent levels of "soundstaging, timbral accuracy and PRaT" all automatically fall into place ... all the mumbo jumbo of normal hifi 'talk' then goes down the gurgler, which is where it deserves to be ..
Yes.
Sort of, not directly.
Sort of, not directly.
Yes, unless one deliberately does some very complex contortions (e.g., low frequency delay lines, a class D amp with a swinging clock...).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.