"provided their measured distortion is below 1000ppm across the audio band..."
We have a number folks! If it is low distortion you want one of those super high feedback amps from the 80s should be your cup of tea. I think you will love it. Go for it!
This is as much an established scientific fact as any you might care to name...........which no amount of words and debate and screaming will alter...
Oh well if that's the case.....an established scientific fact has never
been later to be proven wrong. Never happened never will.
You are right.... No debate, words, or screaming....... (how does one scream via the keyboard?) will settle it.
All it will take is actual careful listening, some experimentation with parts and topologies (no you don't have buy $75 caps), and an open mind. I won't hurt, I promise. Your immortal soul is no danger. You won't be committed. Your wife won't leave you. No one worthy of your respect will ostracize you.
What are you so afraid of, finding out you're wrong?
Tell me who is Galileo, who is the papacy? Who is willing to take risk to learn new things, and who is clinging so desperately to their dogma?
We have a number folks! If it is low distortion you want one of those super high feedback amps from the 80s should be your cup of tea. I think you will love it. Go for it!
This is as much an established scientific fact as any you might care to name...........which no amount of words and debate and screaming will alter...
Oh well if that's the case.....an established scientific fact has never
been later to be proven wrong. Never happened never will.
You are right.... No debate, words, or screaming....... (how does one scream via the keyboard?) will settle it.
All it will take is actual careful listening, some experimentation with parts and topologies (no you don't have buy $75 caps), and an open mind. I won't hurt, I promise. Your immortal soul is no danger. You won't be committed. Your wife won't leave you. No one worthy of your respect will ostracize you.
What are you so afraid of, finding out you're wrong?
Tell me who is Galileo, who is the papacy? Who is willing to take risk to learn new things, and who is clinging so desperately to their dogma?
Re: STEVIE I WONDER...
No, I'm saying that ultimately all that matters to any particular individual is the end result, however one happens to get there.
Tell me, if you were more subjectively pleased with a less objectively perfect approach than a more objectively perfect approach, would you go with that which you were less subjectively pleased with simply because it's objectively better?
And in fact there are many out there who get a more pleasing subjective result with carbon composition resistors, paper in oil capacitors, etc. than with precision metal film resistors and Teflon capacitors.
Who are we to serve in our pursuit of musical enjoyment? Objective specs or our own subjective pleasure? Myself, I choose the latter.
The only waste of time and money is when you're dissatisfied with the result. Though I suppose one can learn from such "failures."
And I'm not saying everyone should take any particular approach. Each individual should take whatever approach ultimately satisfies them in the end.
If someone is most satisfied with precision metal film resistors, I say great. If someone else is most satisfied with carbon composition resistors, I say great too.
What I'm opposed to is the notion that one person's approach is the only valid approach and should somehow be everyone else's approach.
se
fdegrove said:
No, I'm saying that ultimately all that matters to any particular individual is the end result, however one happens to get there.
Tell me, if you were more subjectively pleased with a less objectively perfect approach than a more objectively perfect approach, would you go with that which you were less subjectively pleased with simply because it's objectively better?
And in fact there are many out there who get a more pleasing subjective result with carbon composition resistors, paper in oil capacitors, etc. than with precision metal film resistors and Teflon capacitors.
Who are we to serve in our pursuit of musical enjoyment? Objective specs or our own subjective pleasure? Myself, I choose the latter.
The only waste of time and money is when you're dissatisfied with the result. Though I suppose one can learn from such "failures."
And I'm not saying everyone should take any particular approach. Each individual should take whatever approach ultimately satisfies them in the end.
If someone is most satisfied with precision metal film resistors, I say great. If someone else is most satisfied with carbon composition resistors, I say great too.
What I'm opposed to is the notion that one person's approach is the only valid approach and should somehow be everyone else's approach.
se
Re: nw_avphile...
Actually Galileo didn't have to convince the papacy. Galileo's persecution was more political than theological. To publically admit that Galileo was right, the church, which was really more into political power and control than saving souls, would lose credibility.
Can't have your unquestioning sycophants starting to question your authority.
se
mikek said:
Actually Galileo didn't have to convince the papacy. Galileo's persecution was more political than theological. To publically admit that Galileo was right, the church, which was really more into political power and control than saving souls, would lose credibility.
Can't have your unquestioning sycophants starting to question your authority.
se
Re: Pmkap
Pmkap....i have studied this particular chip's schematic with some rigour......it is infact a widlar-thomson derivative....i.e: the same topology in essence recommended by D. Self...my point is, differentiating between topologies by merely listening to them is shown to be fraudulent by the D.Self/gainclone debate on this forum...
Some rigor......
No...pmkap......i refuse to discuss corpses here...
Evidently a quasi-complementry output stage is equivalent to a compementry EF of CFP within the context of your rigorous study....
Actually my dear fellow, i have nil difficulty in distinguishing between these most elementary of SEPP arrangements.....
Both the National LM and Signetics TDA72xx are quasi-complementry output configurations, possibly due to the difficulty of putting complementry output devices of sufficient power in a monolithic circut. That toplogy is not something I've not seen in Mr. Self's work.
...you appear to have only a cursory appreciation of Self's material, which is quite detailed in its discussion of all three output stage topologies used in the context of the Thomson-Widler voltage gain block...
Indeed, most amps use a ltp input, a Vas, a Vge, and an ouput stage in an amp; and if by your understanding that makes them equivalent topologies I'll accept that as consistent with your intellectual acumen. In the scheme of things, certainly, most all AB audio amps 'look' like Bob Widlar's op amps.....
........No......dear...dear.....dear...fellow.......most amps. do not 'use a VAS'.....as suggested by you or indeed, Self...this would imply the local application of shunt (voltage) derived, series (voltage) applied negative feedback.......
The second stage is, strictly speaking, a T.I.S, (transimpedance stage), courtesy of the local shunt (voltage) derived, shunt (current) applied negative feedback implemented by the Miller stabilising capacitor. I trust you are with me thus far...
I would never argue that one can differentiate between amps toplogies (by whatever metrics) by only listening. I will say that after using 'engineering' to ensure stability, bw, slew.... one can differentiate between implementations by listening......
If you cannot distinguish subjectively between 2 amps of similar objective metrics, good for you, you can save yourself some money, but please don't try to justify yourself with specious topological equivalencies.
I fear you misunderstand.......i strongly assert that infact anyone can hear the difference between two amplifiers with different power ratings and current delivery, ounce such worthies are afforded the opportunity to twiddle the volume control....that is elementary...
However, i reiterate,....it has been shown to be impossible to distinguish between units of whatever topological provenance, provided such posses THD+N, (across the audio band), below 1000 ppm, (Prof. Cheery suggests <33000ppm!), when driven in turn, into the same set of speakers, at the same voltage swing across the later, and well within the power ratings of the units.
As for 'specious (sic) topological equivalencies'...nothing further need be said...
Pmkap....i have studied this particular chip's schematic with some rigour......it is infact a widlar-thomson derivative....i.e: the same topology in essence recommended by D. Self...my point is, differentiating between topologies by merely listening to them is shown to be fraudulent by the D.Self/gainclone debate on this forum...
Some rigor......
No...pmkap......i refuse to discuss corpses here...
Evidently a quasi-complementry output stage is equivalent to a compementry EF of CFP within the context of your rigorous study....
Actually my dear fellow, i have nil difficulty in distinguishing between these most elementary of SEPP arrangements.....
Both the National LM and Signetics TDA72xx are quasi-complementry output configurations, possibly due to the difficulty of putting complementry output devices of sufficient power in a monolithic circut. That toplogy is not something I've not seen in Mr. Self's work.
...you appear to have only a cursory appreciation of Self's material, which is quite detailed in its discussion of all three output stage topologies used in the context of the Thomson-Widler voltage gain block...
Indeed, most amps use a ltp input, a Vas, a Vge, and an ouput stage in an amp; and if by your understanding that makes them equivalent topologies I'll accept that as consistent with your intellectual acumen. In the scheme of things, certainly, most all AB audio amps 'look' like Bob Widlar's op amps.....
........No......dear...dear.....dear...fellow....
...most amps. do not 'use a VAS'.....as suggested by you or indeed, Self...this would imply the local application of shunt (voltage) derived, series (voltage) applied negative feedback.......The second stage is, strictly speaking, a T.I.S, (transimpedance stage), courtesy of the local shunt (voltage) derived, shunt (current) applied negative feedback implemented by the Miller stabilising capacitor. I trust you are with me thus far...
I would never argue that one can differentiate between amps toplogies (by whatever metrics) by only listening. I will say that after using 'engineering' to ensure stability, bw, slew.... one can differentiate between implementations by listening......
If you cannot distinguish subjectively between 2 amps of similar objective metrics, good for you, you can save yourself some money, but please don't try to justify yourself with specious topological equivalencies.
I fear you misunderstand.......i strongly assert that infact anyone can hear the difference between two amplifiers with different power ratings and current delivery, ounce such worthies are afforded the opportunity to twiddle the volume control....that is elementary...
However, i reiterate,....it has been shown to be impossible to distinguish between units of whatever topological provenance, provided such posses THD+N, (across the audio band), below 1000 ppm, (Prof. Cheery suggests <33000ppm!), when driven in turn, into the same set of speakers, at the same voltage swing across the later, and well within the power ratings of the units.
As for 'specious (sic) topological equivalencies'...nothing further need be said...
Torpedos...
Hi,
That is what matters to you, I understand and respect that.
We all have our biases, whether we're aware of them or not...still as I said before, I'd like to know why, say, you like xformer coupled stages with inherently limited frequency response better than I like wide bandwidth tubedesigns devoid of coupling xformers, but that is entirely psychological territory is it not?
We're all different and we don't have measures for that, or do we?
Just for the the record, I doubt very much I'd like what you like and doubt in the same way you would like what I consider more faithful to the source.
Does that mean you're a bad guy to me?
By no means, as long as you state that is what you prefer to listen to...which is what you do and I therefore admire you for it.
What I've trouble with though is people saying, hey look this or that test method proves beyond reasonable doubt that two things are identical while I still hear a difference between the two.
I hate to be forcefed like a goose submitted to gavrage.
See what I mean? Yes, you do.
Ciao,
Hi,
That is what matters to you, I understand and respect that.
We all have our biases, whether we're aware of them or not...still as I said before, I'd like to know why, say, you like xformer coupled stages with inherently limited frequency response better than I like wide bandwidth tubedesigns devoid of coupling xformers, but that is entirely psychological territory is it not?
We're all different and we don't have measures for that, or do we?
Just for the the record, I doubt very much I'd like what you like and doubt in the same way you would like what I consider more faithful to the source.
Does that mean you're a bad guy to me?
By no means, as long as you state that is what you prefer to listen to...which is what you do and I therefore admire you for it.
What I've trouble with though is people saying, hey look this or that test method proves beyond reasonable doubt that two things are identical while I still hear a difference between the two.
I hate to be forcefed like a goose submitted to gavrage.
See what I mean? Yes, you do.
Ciao,
Gee, I go away for a few hours and return to find Galileo of all people has become entwined in this thread. I thought he had something to do with planets?
mikek what are you trying to make a point about now? And you've got Fred fired up again. What are you arguing exactly and to what end?
Are you saying that if an error is small enough we won't hear it? Yes, so what? Or are you saying that a THD measurement below 1000ppm is inaudible? Which is inane because THD isn't a comprehensive measure of distortion. Or are you just trying to tell people their hearing isn't infinite in resolution. What?
mikek what are you trying to make a point about now? And you've got Fred fired up again. What are you arguing exactly and to what end?
Are you saying that if an error is small enough we won't hear it? Yes, so what? Or are you saying that a THD measurement below 1000ppm is inaudible? Which is inane because THD isn't a comprehensive measure of distortion. Or are you just trying to tell people their hearing isn't infinite in resolution. What?
blind tests
I reread the first post. I have been following this thread and I find it quite interesting. Qute frankly there has been intelligent banter on all sides. I appreciate that.
Let's get back to the first post. I think the test was well intentioned. But, I continue to state that it is too limitted to make the broad presumptions that were asserted. Didn't it just show that no difference could be detected between the Onkyo and the high end Bryston? So what. If that is the case, that is the case. But, it is a great leap to state that this is the case all the time. We know nothing about the power levels used. Also, I don't know of the make up of an Onkyo or a Bryston. Maybe someone could educate me here. Maybe they are similar. Maybe the Bryston is overpriced. Heck, a Gaincard is even a not so glorified OPamp that sells for a lot of money and is considered high end. There are people in this forum making "clones" that are probably as good or better for a fraction of the price. (That is why we are here, right?) I won't delve into the pricing of high end stuff because we all have an idea of why stuff is priced the way it is and an Onkyo is mass produced and benefits from economies of scale.
As far as I am concerned, the testing suggested in the first post was limitted to the two amps. There is simply not enough evidence there anyway to prove a point one way or another.
I personally would be very please if the null testing methods worked because it would help in the tweking and selection of components in stuff that I want to build. It could speed up development.
Peter Daniel and other,
You have made Alephs, gainclones and other amps. How about you try it and and give us some feedback. I think it would be beneficial to everyone.
Vic
I reread the first post. I have been following this thread and I find it quite interesting. Qute frankly there has been intelligent banter on all sides. I appreciate that.
Let's get back to the first post. I think the test was well intentioned. But, I continue to state that it is too limitted to make the broad presumptions that were asserted. Didn't it just show that no difference could be detected between the Onkyo and the high end Bryston? So what. If that is the case, that is the case. But, it is a great leap to state that this is the case all the time. We know nothing about the power levels used. Also, I don't know of the make up of an Onkyo or a Bryston. Maybe someone could educate me here. Maybe they are similar. Maybe the Bryston is overpriced. Heck, a Gaincard is even a not so glorified OPamp that sells for a lot of money and is considered high end. There are people in this forum making "clones" that are probably as good or better for a fraction of the price. (That is why we are here, right?) I won't delve into the pricing of high end stuff because we all have an idea of why stuff is priced the way it is and an Onkyo is mass produced and benefits from economies of scale.
As far as I am concerned, the testing suggested in the first post was limitted to the two amps. There is simply not enough evidence there anyway to prove a point one way or another.
I personally would be very please if the null testing methods worked because it would help in the tweking and selection of components in stuff that I want to build. It could speed up development.
Peter Daniel and other,
You have made Alephs, gainclones and other amps. How about you try it and and give us some feedback. I think it would be beneficial to everyone.
Vic
traderbam said:Gee, I go away for a few hours and return to find Galileo of all people has become entwined in this thread. I thought he had something to do with planets?
mikek what are you trying to make a point about now? And you've got Fred fired up again. What are you arguing exactly and to what end?
Are you saying that if an error is small enough we won't hear it? Yes, so what? Or are you saying that a THD measurement below 1000ppm is inaudible? Which is inane because THD isn't a comprehensive measure of distortion. Or are you just trying to tell people their hearing isn't infinite in resolution. What?
Hi Traderbam......i have obviously been less than crystal clear....i am saying in a nutshell getting signal through an amp. without bending it, and with minimum, (read inaudible) noise is the single most impotant criterion for such a device....
mikek said:
Here we go again...
No answers but more questions I see.........
As for the objectivty and undisputed results in favor of double blind test........
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113:6
Re: blind tests
I'm NOT saying all amplifiers sound the same. I'm also not saying it only comes down to THD. I'm just saying that blind tests can reveal things that most audiophiles are unware of--that a lot of the difference they think exist really don't. I'm only trying to encourage others to try some blind tests and see what they hear. If they hear a difference, great! There are plenty to be heard even in blind tests
I have a problem with people calling me deaf, dumb, suggesting I buy my hi-fi gear at Wal-Mart, accusing me of lying, etc. all because I share my experiences and research centered around blind testing, null testing, and what impacts they've had on my audio beliefs. It sounds like SY has gone through a similar experience to mine. There are many others here who seem to be on the more rational side of this debate.
A few of the hardcore golden ear types, however, are acting as if they're threatened or backed into a corner and lashing out in all manner of ways. IMHO, they've been unable to defend their position on rational, logical or factual grounds, so they've resorted to much hand waving, name calling, snide remarks and general diversion. As I've said many times, I wasn't trying to win these folks over (which I'm sure will never happen), I'm just trying to keep the facts straight for the benefit of others reading this debate.
I wasn't trying to make that great leap, I only posted that example because I thought it might provoke discussion as to how such a thing could happen. If you don't like that one, use the Sunshine Audio challenge. If you don't like that one either, use the Stereophile Carver challenge, or the Tom Nousaine experiments, etc. The example isn't as important as the concept.vic said:
I'm NOT saying all amplifiers sound the same. I'm also not saying it only comes down to THD. I'm just saying that blind tests can reveal things that most audiophiles are unware of--that a lot of the difference they think exist really don't. I'm only trying to encourage others to try some blind tests and see what they hear. If they hear a difference, great! There are plenty to be heard even in blind tests
I have a problem with people calling me deaf, dumb, suggesting I buy my hi-fi gear at Wal-Mart, accusing me of lying, etc. all because I share my experiences and research centered around blind testing, null testing, and what impacts they've had on my audio beliefs. It sounds like SY has gone through a similar experience to mine. There are many others here who seem to be on the more rational side of this debate.
A few of the hardcore golden ear types, however, are acting as if they're threatened or backed into a corner and lashing out in all manner of ways. IMHO, they've been unable to defend their position on rational, logical or factual grounds, so they've resorted to much hand waving, name calling, snide remarks and general diversion. As I've said many times, I wasn't trying to win these folks over (which I'm sure will never happen), I'm just trying to keep the facts straight for the benefit of others reading this debate.
Re: Re: Re: Re: just one word plastics
It's been documented in the minds of the ones who saw the experiment. I'm not sure but I guess I saw it as well on "Ripley, believe it or not"
He said:
If Fred or Peter or anyone else here was saying "I buy/build really high-end esoteric
stuff because it makes me feel good and it sounds better to me" I'd say GREAT! But many
of you are trying to argue the differences you hear, under very subjective biased
conditions, are REAL and of potential benefit to others.
Well, he didn't say it exactly, but he implied that the differences I hear are not real and I'm building my amps the way I do, only because it makes me feel good and they sound better only to me. The truth is, I'm building them that way, because that's the only way I can built them (and sometimes it makes me feel bad that I don't have his perception of reality) and they sound better that way to everybody who is listening to them. He didn't listen to them so he can't know that and I didn't take the DBT so even I don't know if the differences in sounds I hear are real or not so how can he know? Unless he has some ESP capabilities, which I doubt.
Steve Eddy said:
It's been documented in the minds of the ones who saw the experiment. I'm not sure but I guess I saw it as well on "Ripley, believe it or not"
Steve Eddy said:
He said:
If Fred or Peter or anyone else here was saying "I buy/build really high-end esoteric
stuff because it makes me feel good and it sounds better to me" I'd say GREAT! But many
of you are trying to argue the differences you hear, under very subjective biased
conditions, are REAL and of potential benefit to others.
Well, he didn't say it exactly, but he implied that the differences I hear are not real and I'm building my amps the way I do, only because it makes me feel good and they sound better only to me. The truth is, I'm building them that way, because that's the only way I can built them (and sometimes it makes me feel bad that I don't have his perception of reality) and they sound better that way to everybody who is listening to them. He didn't listen to them so he can't know that and I didn't take the DBT so even I don't know if the differences in sounds I hear are real or not so how can he know? Unless he has some ESP capabilities, which I doubt.
Re: Torpedos...
I know this wasn't part of your point but I have to stop and ask, what do you mean by limited frequency response? None of the transformers I use go out to anything less than 100kHz. Certainly that would be considered limited in the context of say a radio transmitter, but how is 100kHz limiting with respect to the audio band?
Yes, I see what you mean.
I haven't read all of this thread as it's become rather a monster, but I thought that everyone was pretty much in agreement that a null result (not to be confused with a nulling) does not constitute proof of anything other than you got a null result?
se
fdegrove said:
I know this wasn't part of your point but I have to stop and ask, what do you mean by limited frequency response? None of the transformers I use go out to anything less than 100kHz. Certainly that would be considered limited in the context of say a radio transmitter, but how is 100kHz limiting with respect to the audio band?
What I've trouble with though is people saying, hey look this or that test method proves beyond reasonable doubt that two things are identical while I still hear a difference between the two.
I hate to be forcefed like a goose submitted to gavrage.
See what I mean? Yes, you do.
Yes, I see what you mean.
I haven't read all of this thread as it's become rather a monster, but I thought that everyone was pretty much in agreement that a null result (not to be confused with a nulling) does not constitute proof of anything other than you got a null result?
se
Re: NOPE...
So, if NFB creates problems, how come they don't show up in difference testing? Do you have a test that shows the timing problems created by NFB?
Is it possible the desire for low NFB amps was the result of:
1 - Manufactures were looking for The Next New Thing to market their otherwise very similar amplifiers and NFB seemed like as good of way as any.
2 - Some low NFB amps have LOTS of "euphonic distortion" that some folks seem to prefer (i.e. single ended tube designs).
3 - 1 & 2 above combined with the high-end press hype was a recipe to make high NFB yet another audiophile myth like green felt pens on the edge of CDs.
I also would like to point out (again) that by the time the signal reaches your speakers it's been through dozens of cheap op-amps--many of them buffers running 100% feedback or typically 100+db of NFB FOR EACH BUFFER. If NFB was really so awful, don't you think the cumulative effect of all those extremely high NFB amps would have destroyed any hope of the audio ever sounding halfway decent? Remember, the playback side of the audio chain is the smaller side.
Well "timing related problems" certainly show up in a null difference test. And you know what? High NFB amps tends to do much better on null tests than low (and local) NFB amps (see Tube_Dude's results earlier for some examples). And I'm talking about amps playing real music driving real speakers.fdegrove said:
So, if NFB creates problems, how come they don't show up in difference testing? Do you have a test that shows the timing problems created by NFB?
Is it possible the desire for low NFB amps was the result of:
1 - Manufactures were looking for The Next New Thing to market their otherwise very similar amplifiers and NFB seemed like as good of way as any.
2 - Some low NFB amps have LOTS of "euphonic distortion" that some folks seem to prefer (i.e. single ended tube designs).
3 - 1 & 2 above combined with the high-end press hype was a recipe to make high NFB yet another audiophile myth like green felt pens on the edge of CDs.
I also would like to point out (again) that by the time the signal reaches your speakers it's been through dozens of cheap op-amps--many of them buffers running 100% feedback or typically 100+db of NFB FOR EACH BUFFER. If NFB was really so awful, don't you think the cumulative effect of all those extremely high NFB amps would have destroyed any hope of the audio ever sounding halfway decent? Remember, the playback side of the audio chain is the smaller side.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: just one word plastics
I didn't see any such implication.
He seems to be saying nothing more than I have said a number of times. And that is because psychology CAN play a significant role in our subjective perceptions, you can't KNOW what role it's playing until you're able to filter out the psychological aspects.
This is neither saying nor implying that everyone's subjective perceptions ARE due to psychology.
Are you sure you're just not being a bit too defensive here? I've encountered this many times before. If you simply make mention of the fact that psychology CAN play a role, some people rear up on their haunches and get all defensive as if you had flat out dismissed entirely out of hand their subjective perceptions.
That's certainly not what I'm doing. And I don't see anything in that quote which is saying that either.
I don't see that he's claiming to know that. Unless there are some messages that I've missed (which I have), what I see is your saying you don't really know and his saying you don't really know. Which would seem to me puts you both in agreement.
se
Peter Daniel said:
I didn't see any such implication.
He seems to be saying nothing more than I have said a number of times. And that is because psychology CAN play a significant role in our subjective perceptions, you can't KNOW what role it's playing until you're able to filter out the psychological aspects.
This is neither saying nor implying that everyone's subjective perceptions ARE due to psychology.
Are you sure you're just not being a bit too defensive here? I've encountered this many times before. If you simply make mention of the fact that psychology CAN play a role, some people rear up on their haunches and get all defensive as if you had flat out dismissed entirely out of hand their subjective perceptions.
That's certainly not what I'm doing. And I don't see anything in that quote which is saying that either.
I don't see that he's claiming to know that. Unless there are some messages that I've missed (which I have), what I see is your saying you don't really know and his saying you don't really know. Which would seem to me puts you both in agreement.
se
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: just one word plastics
And why would you seem to have the impression that we were not in agreement?
Steve Eddy said:
I don't see that he's claiming to know that. Unless there are some messages that I've missed (which I have), what I see is your saying you don't really know and his saying you don't really know. Which would seem to me puts you both in agreement.
se
And why would you seem to have the impression that we were not in agreement?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.