Re: Sorry...but i haven't talked design with and listened to designs from Bill Conrad of
I fear you have completely missed my point. I only meant that hearing remarkable musicians is a reminder how woefully short most equipment comes when trying reproduce music. This fact seems to be conspicuously absent in these discussions. I am afraid that you seem to have read stuff into my post that I didn't intend.
Also, and I intend no disrespect since I guess English is your second language, could you use a spell checker on your post. I am doing this myself, to try and be clearer. I appreciate you contributions to the forum, but your post make me dizzy reading them. I offer this advice to all posters, whether English is your native tongue or not. It is a real effort to read some of the post on the forum and think some of the posters points are lost. I copy the quote into my Email program and write my response there to run the spell and syntax checker. It has been very helpful to me and I think it helps to make my post clearer. I am not signaling you out as even the moderators write careless post. The computer, and especially the desire to respond quickly, cause us all to horribly abuse the English language.
The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
-Mark Twain
Tube_Dude said:
I fear you have completely missed my point. I only meant that hearing remarkable musicians is a reminder how woefully short most equipment comes when trying reproduce music. This fact seems to be conspicuously absent in these discussions. I am afraid that you seem to have read stuff into my post that I didn't intend.
Also, and I intend no disrespect since I guess English is your second language, could you use a spell checker on your post. I am doing this myself, to try and be clearer. I appreciate you contributions to the forum, but your post make me dizzy reading them. I offer this advice to all posters, whether English is your native tongue or not. It is a real effort to read some of the post on the forum and think some of the posters points are lost. I copy the quote into my Email program and write my response there to run the spell and syntax checker. It has been very helpful to me and I think it helps to make my post clearer. I am not signaling you out as even the moderators write careless post. The computer, and especially the desire to respond quickly, cause us all to horribly abuse the English language.
The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
-Mark Twain
Hi traderbam...
quote:
Crucialy, of course, differences in load driving ability will be observed as the volume control is advanced, but this then is a wholly explicable case of raw available power..i.e: current reserves, and headroom.....Nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread....i.e: unmeasurable, but audible differences between units.....which have consistently been shown to be wholly imaginary. endqoute
traderbam says:
I disagree with the premise that measurement is comprehensive. If something is audible (repeatably) then it is measurable. However, it does not follow that if something cannot be measured then it cannot be heard.
......i was infact suggesting that no hitherto audible defects have been shown to be unmeasurable, and conversely..
mikek
quote:
Crucialy, of course, differences in load driving ability will be observed as the volume control is advanced, but this then is a wholly explicable case of raw available power..i.e: current reserves, and headroom.....Nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread....i.e: unmeasurable, but audible differences between units.....which have consistently been shown to be wholly imaginary. endqoute
traderbam says:
I disagree with the premise that measurement is comprehensive. If something is audible (repeatably) then it is measurable. However, it does not follow that if something cannot be measured then it cannot be heard.
......i was infact suggesting that no hitherto audible defects have been shown to be unmeasurable, and conversely..
mikekRe: Case in point...
And with an equal amount of respect so did he. The more he posted the further he wandered away from it. Perhaps you can tell us what he meant, and in the context of all his post and not just the first one. I have been very specific in my objections to his viewpoints.
mikek said:
Fred, with respect, i think you've missed nw-avphiles' point entirely...
And with an equal amount of respect so did he. The more he posted the further he wandered away from it. Perhaps you can tell us what he meant, and in the context of all his post and not just the first one. I have been very specific in my objections to his viewpoints.
The final argument!!!...of Fred
So...when there is no tecnical,arguments...nothing better that the errors in language arguments...
OK...Very gentle for the non English speakers in this forum...
In any post we can have a idea of the tecnical merit of the writer but also of is personality!!
I would like to see you in a forum discussing tecnical issues in portuguese!!!
But one thing i can tell you..in that case.you will never see me complaint about any grammatical error that eventually you could give...but only of the technical errors!!
So we are very diferents kind of people!
PS: For the future and for simplicity of you readind...fell free to ignore my posts!!!
So...when there is no tecnical,arguments...nothing better that the errors in language arguments...
OK...Very gentle for the non English speakers in this forum...
In any post we can have a idea of the tecnical merit of the writer but also of is personality!!
I would like to see you in a forum discussing tecnical issues in portuguese!!!
But one thing i can tell you..in that case.you will never see me complaint about any grammatical error that eventually you could give...but only of the technical errors!!
So we are very diferents kind of people!
PS: For the future and for simplicity of you readind...fell free to ignore my posts!!!
Blind rides again...
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes... you can have the last word after this one Fred, I promise.
The results of the blind studies referenced are facts, they're not subjective. You can try to fault the blind studies I referenced if you like, but the results are factual--the people doing the listening couldn't tell the difference and some admitted as much. Likewise, the results of null testing are factual. So are the components used in studio gear. ALL of these things can be verified to be true.
By comparison, the high-end crowd's argument that say different brands of poly capacitors sound different has no basis in scientific fact. You can't measure the differences and you apparently can't hear them when you remove the bias of knowing which one you're listening to.
Further, your argument appears to be based almost entirely on subjective non-blind listening that you and others have done. The whole science behind blind testing shows the way you listen is subject to huge errors in perception.
And you keep saying "simplistic" as if that's a negative thing. Some would argue both blind testing and null testing are elegantly simple in their ability to take all that matters into account. It's a BENEFIT that they're simplistic, in that they do not require exotic equipment, etc.
While a DIY amplifier may not outperform a commercial one, at least in terms of it's overall "sound", that's no reason not to build it! You can still have the satisfaction of listening to something you built, and you can also improve it in other ways over a commercial design (i.e. lower cost, increased current capability, custom features, unique packaging, etc.).
For example: If the difference signal from a null test (with real music driving real speakers) is unchanged by swapping out a capacitor, a very strong case can be made that capacitor doesn't make any difference under those real-world conditions. So in that case, people should think about using the cheaper one. I don't think that makes me an "arbiter" at all.
It would be like advising someone who's modifying their car's engine they might want to head down to the local shop with the dynomometer to have them take before and after horsepower and torque measurements. Or, if that's a bit too much hassle, at least they should carry a stop watch with them and try to clock 0-60 runs on the same stretch of ground so they can have a basis for what they're doing and what effect the changes they're making have.
By your argument, the person should just modify the engine, take the car out, drive it for a while, and purely by the seat of their pants, decide which modifications are best. Never mind the huge subjective bias of having invested time and money and wanting that to pay off. Never mind the car may actually be slower than before they modified it. Never mind that hours or days may go by between the "before" and the "after" test drives clouding their memory and further hampering their ability to make a fair comparison.
It comes down to this: IF BETTER TOOLS EXIST, WHY NOT USE THEM???
When it comes to sound quality (or fidelity if you prefer that word), we already know how to make an amplifier that has no sonic flaws. A good example is the Doug Self "blameless" amplifier. If you want to improve on that, you need to do something like increase the efficiency, or make it simpler and cheaper to build, or make it drive one ohm loads, or develop new protection circuitry, or adapt it to other designs, find creative new ways to package it, etc. There's a lot left to work with!
As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been working with digital amplifiers which, on paper, have a number of benefits over conventional ones. They still have room for audible improvement, however. I've done fairly extensive blind testing of a TriPath spread spectrum Class T amp and a high quality conventional amp and the TriPath stands out like a sore thumb in blind testing. It has a harshness in the high frequencies that's audible. So if someone here can find a cure for the TriPath's ills, that would be a big step forward (and they could probably sell it to TriPath!).
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes... you can have the last word after this one Fred, I promise.
I'm not asking people here to believe me if they don't want to, I'M ONLY ASKING THEM TO TRY IT FOR THEMSELVES. It's likely they'll get the same results as everyone else who's done anything resembling a proper blind test.Fred Dieckmann said:
The results of the blind studies referenced are facts, they're not subjective. You can try to fault the blind studies I referenced if you like, but the results are factual--the people doing the listening couldn't tell the difference and some admitted as much. Likewise, the results of null testing are factual. So are the components used in studio gear. ALL of these things can be verified to be true.
By comparison, the high-end crowd's argument that say different brands of poly capacitors sound different has no basis in scientific fact. You can't measure the differences and you apparently can't hear them when you remove the bias of knowing which one you're listening to.
If by suggesting people try removing the bias of knowing what they're listening to, or try some experiments with null testing, I'm changing their viewpoints, then I guess I'm guilty.Fred Dieckmann said:
There are far more than "a few advocates" of blind testing once you get away from the rarified air of high-end esoteric audio. It's widely used, advocated and respected elsewhere. But even within high-end audio, there are people who have verifiable credentials (like Tom Nousaine and Douglas Self--both widely published authors) who's experience I prefer to respect over a few anonymous people posting to an online forum.Fred Dieckmann said:
Further, your argument appears to be based almost entirely on subjective non-blind listening that you and others have done. The whole science behind blind testing shows the way you listen is subject to huge errors in perception.
And you keep saying "simplistic" as if that's a negative thing. Some would argue both blind testing and null testing are elegantly simple in their ability to take all that matters into account. It's a BENEFIT that they're simplistic, in that they do not require exotic equipment, etc.
I'm glad you think you know my rational better than I do? I've stated my rational several times: Help people focus on the things that make an objective difference. I was only trying to provide the tools to help them towards that goal.Fred Dieckmann said:
While a DIY amplifier may not outperform a commercial one, at least in terms of it's overall "sound", that's no reason not to build it! You can still have the satisfaction of listening to something you built, and you can also improve it in other ways over a commercial design (i.e. lower cost, increased current capability, custom features, unique packaging, etc.).
It's like the difference between buying or building your own furniture, or sailboat. What you end up with might not be any better than something you could have purchased commercially, but you have the pride and satisfaction in having gone off the beaten path and built it yourself. Not many people build their own audio gear. It's relatively unique and can be a creative expression in terms of the packaging (just look at the amazing metal work Peter Daniel has done as an example).Fred Dieckmann said:
Not at all! I only suggest people use blind testing to determine the "audible" part. That way if someone does have really amazing hearing/listening skills, they might end up spending more money than someone who doesn't. With null testing, it's the same thing, it's just an addition tool in the arsenal to help people make informed decisions.Fred Dieckmann said:
For example: If the difference signal from a null test (with real music driving real speakers) is unchanged by swapping out a capacitor, a very strong case can be made that capacitor doesn't make any difference under those real-world conditions. So in that case, people should think about using the cheaper one. I don't think that makes me an "arbiter" at all.
It would be like advising someone who's modifying their car's engine they might want to head down to the local shop with the dynomometer to have them take before and after horsepower and torque measurements. Or, if that's a bit too much hassle, at least they should carry a stop watch with them and try to clock 0-60 runs on the same stretch of ground so they can have a basis for what they're doing and what effect the changes they're making have.
By your argument, the person should just modify the engine, take the car out, drive it for a while, and purely by the seat of their pants, decide which modifications are best. Never mind the huge subjective bias of having invested time and money and wanting that to pay off. Never mind the car may actually be slower than before they modified it. Never mind that hours or days may go by between the "before" and the "after" test drives clouding their memory and further hampering their ability to make a fair comparison.
It comes down to this: IF BETTER TOOLS EXIST, WHY NOT USE THEM???
Let them (hopefully) find ways to make them better in WAYS THAT CAN SURVIVE OBJECTIVE TESTING (including blind listening tests). The FDA won't let drugs on the market merely because the manufacture THINKS they help people. They have to go through rigorous BLIND studies to PROVE they work before they're allowed onto the market. Any improvements folks here come up with for amplifiers should be subject to some sort of reasonable scrutiny that doesn't involve psychological bias.Fred Dieckmann said:
When it comes to sound quality (or fidelity if you prefer that word), we already know how to make an amplifier that has no sonic flaws. A good example is the Doug Self "blameless" amplifier. If you want to improve on that, you need to do something like increase the efficiency, or make it simpler and cheaper to build, or make it drive one ohm loads, or develop new protection circuitry, or adapt it to other designs, find creative new ways to package it, etc. There's a lot left to work with!
As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been working with digital amplifiers which, on paper, have a number of benefits over conventional ones. They still have room for audible improvement, however. I've done fairly extensive blind testing of a TriPath spread spectrum Class T amp and a high quality conventional amp and the TriPath stands out like a sore thumb in blind testing. It has a harshness in the high frequencies that's audible. So if someone here can find a cure for the TriPath's ills, that would be a big step forward (and they could probably sell it to TriPath!).
Do others really think I'm being dishonest? Again, all the concepts I've presented can be readily verified. If you choose to think that myself, Doug Self, Tom Nousaine and the countless others who have said similar things are all lying to you, that's your choice I guess.Fred Dieckmann said:
analog_sa said:
Yes the logical im my test is the same that of the Hafler test!
Yes group delays will introduce problems in tube amplifiers...but this problems are also at work in the feedback loop...because as you say if the amp produce group delay the feedback is also delayed and can't correct the errors in time...
So we have two problems...not one.
As the great economist Thomas Sowell once said, "simplistic" means that I disagree with you but I don't have a good counterargument.
I'd recommend to anyone getting involved in this stuff the book "Flim-Flam" by James Randi. You'll see some eerily similar arguments to those put forth against doing controlled listening tests. The dowsing chapter is particularly illuminating.
I'd recommend to anyone getting involved in this stuff the book "Flim-Flam" by James Randi. You'll see some eerily similar arguments to those put forth against doing controlled listening tests. The dowsing chapter is particularly illuminating.
Re: Re: Topological acuity....
It surely an impossible task, why waste time on it. And no evidence ever will be presented I guess because the test are perfect. What the heck do you do for a living? You sound sort like an engineer, but I can't imagine that. The first time anybody asked you to do anything challenging I would think you would say it can't be done because somebody else said it couldn't be done, or it had never done it. My last boss would have eaten you alive. In the telecom industry, I have worked on plenty of task, troubleshooting, measurements, and designs that:
A. Had never been done before.
B. Couldn't ever be done.
C. Would cost to much.
D. Couldn't be measured because someone else could not measure it.
E. Could never be done within a certain time.
In fact most of the engineering I have done in conflict one or more of the previous objections. This constant fall back on the established engineering orthodoxy and status quo is ridiculous. Most of the papers in the AES Journal are written by academics with a particular agenda and little or no experience designing audio. If Dougless Self is a brilliant designer why doesn't he have a string of successful commercial products out there. I have never seen any. I guess its all be cause of the great audiophile conspiracy.
This dredging up the XL-280 and Hafler test is interesting too. I looked at the schematic and it very much looks to be an Erno
Borbely design based on the parts choice and topology. There are lots of 1% metal film resistors, polypropylene caps, polycarbonate caps, and even two carbon comp resistors. The Toshiba Jfets in the front end are are favorite of many of the lunatic fringe set. In fact many of these part types are what the "tweaker delusional audiophile" set recommend. Erno Borbely is a very talented audio designer with a string of successful commercial designs. He is an advocate of measurements and has written articles on distortion measurement. He also talks about the sound of different passive components. How could that be?
mikek said:
It surely an impossible task, why waste time on it. And no evidence ever will be presented I guess because the test are perfect. What the heck do you do for a living? You sound sort like an engineer, but I can't imagine that. The first time anybody asked you to do anything challenging I would think you would say it can't be done because somebody else said it couldn't be done, or it had never done it. My last boss would have eaten you alive. In the telecom industry, I have worked on plenty of task, troubleshooting, measurements, and designs that:
A. Had never been done before.
B. Couldn't ever be done.
C. Would cost to much.
D. Couldn't be measured because someone else could not measure it.
E. Could never be done within a certain time.
In fact most of the engineering I have done in conflict one or more of the previous objections. This constant fall back on the established engineering orthodoxy and status quo is ridiculous. Most of the papers in the AES Journal are written by academics with a particular agenda and little or no experience designing audio. If Dougless Self is a brilliant designer why doesn't he have a string of successful commercial products out there. I have never seen any. I guess its all be cause of the great audiophile conspiracy.
This dredging up the XL-280 and Hafler test is interesting too. I looked at the schematic and it very much looks to be an Erno
Borbely design based on the parts choice and topology. There are lots of 1% metal film resistors, polypropylene caps, polycarbonate caps, and even two carbon comp resistors. The Toshiba Jfets in the front end are are favorite of many of the lunatic fringe set. In fact many of these part types are what the "tweaker delusional audiophile" set recommend. Erno Borbely is a very talented audio designer with a string of successful commercial designs. He is an advocate of measurements and has written articles on distortion measurement. He also talks about the sound of different passive components. How could that be?
Hafler vs Null Testing
I have nothing against using higher quality components if they make a measurable or audible (blind) difference. In the case of the XL-280 I suspect either they did, or they used some of those parts for marketing reasons like so many other manufactures have done.
Also, the XL-280 is really an entirely separate issue from that of null testing. It just happens Hafler brought null testing out of the closet with the XL-280. But whatever you care to say about the XL-280 doesn't make null testing any more or less valid.
Well... the XL-280 sold for around $500 or $600 assembled if my memory is correct? For a 145 w/ch (continuous power at clipping 280w/ch into 4 ohms) that's not exactly "high-end" pricing. The poly caps in the Hafler are the sort you can buy from DigiKey for under a dollar or two. As I said elsewhere, I believe Borbely was involved with the design and I agree he's a talented designer.Fred Dieckmann said:
I have nothing against using higher quality components if they make a measurable or audible (blind) difference. In the case of the XL-280 I suspect either they did, or they used some of those parts for marketing reasons like so many other manufactures have done.
Also, the XL-280 is really an entirely separate issue from that of null testing. It just happens Hafler brought null testing out of the closet with the XL-280. But whatever you care to say about the XL-280 doesn't make null testing any more or less valid.
Pkamp....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...
Evidently a quasi-complementry output stage is equivalent to a complementry EF of CFP within the context of your rigorous study.
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.
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.
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.
Some rigor...
Evidently a quasi-complementry output stage is equivalent to a complementry EF of CFP within the context of your rigorous study.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Blind rides again...
I said intellectually dishonest. There is a difference. I am referring to refuse to admit to your self that your testing can be flawed and mask differences. I question the motivation of the people making the claims about double blind testing. Walt Jung conducted double blind testing of preamp circuits and talked about the successes and limitations of the test. When a whole industry flies against the premise a small number of people one wonders about the motivation and results of these few. I believe that even companies like Sony listen to there products as part of the design phase. Tell me exactly who these people are that this group is protecting and what they are protecting them from. I see a small group of people trying to protect their egos and preventing others from making progress and getting more enjoyment from their equipment. I have seen countless people move out of the measurement only camp into the realm of listening, learning, experimenting and enjoying their equipment more. Many of them are intelligent people from conservative science and engineering backgrounds.
You one of the few have seen trying to go in the other direction.
nw_avphile said:
I said intellectually dishonest. There is a difference. I am referring to refuse to admit to your self that your testing can be flawed and mask differences. I question the motivation of the people making the claims about double blind testing. Walt Jung conducted double blind testing of preamp circuits and talked about the successes and limitations of the test. When a whole industry flies against the premise a small number of people one wonders about the motivation and results of these few. I believe that even companies like Sony listen to there products as part of the design phase. Tell me exactly who these people are that this group is protecting and what they are protecting them from. I see a small group of people trying to protect their egos and preventing others from making progress and getting more enjoyment from their equipment. I have seen countless people move out of the measurement only camp into the realm of listening, learning, experimenting and enjoying their equipment more. Many of them are intelligent people from conservative science and engineering backgrounds.
You one of the few have seen trying to go in the other direction.
Iraq war.
Looks like the Iraq war has had its effects here also.
Plenty of 'unpleasant feelings'. This is not a good thing. This was a great HAPPY forum. Lets keep it that way . It's not one's opinion that matters .. it's how we put it across that matters.
It is a great thing to respect all people. It's even greater if we can do that in real life.
I thought that we must be better than the Martians but now ......I am not quite so sure !
Looks like the Iraq war has had its effects here also.
Plenty of 'unpleasant feelings'. This is not a good thing. This was a great HAPPY forum. Lets keep it that way . It's not one's opinion that matters .. it's how we put it across that matters.
It is a great thing to respect all people. It's even greater if we can do that in real life.
I thought that we must be better than the Martians but now ......I am not quite so sure !
Re: Re: Re: Topological acuity....
Self's book does a great job of discussing "subjectivists" (i.e. those who place non-blind listening results above all else in audio) in the first chapter of his book. He discusses all the things we've talked about in this thread and more. He makes very credible (and well referenced) arguments why subjectivists hear and believe what they do, and why they're often wrong.
What commercial audio amplifiers have you brought to market Fred? What books have you had published? What papers, studies and documentation have you referenced to support your views (there are dozens of references in Self's book)?
Ah, so now you also want to discredit and/or ignore the AES and the entire scientific peer review process because what they publish doesn't agree with YOUR biased and subjective views?Fred Dieckmann said:
Well, Self does have a commercial background, but he readily admits in his book there's nothing especially magic about his approach to amplifier design. His blameless amplifier is just a refined version of the same topology that's in use in countless commercial designs. Why should he go into a market already crowded with excellent products when his would have little differentiation?Fred Dieckmann said:
Self's book does a great job of discussing "subjectivists" (i.e. those who place non-blind listening results above all else in audio) in the first chapter of his book. He discusses all the things we've talked about in this thread and more. He makes very credible (and well referenced) arguments why subjectivists hear and believe what they do, and why they're often wrong.
What commercial audio amplifiers have you brought to market Fred? What books have you had published? What papers, studies and documentation have you referenced to support your views (there are dozens of references in Self's book)?
Well, I guess that depends on how you define "really high end"?Peter Daniel said:
The easy answer would be this January. I attend CES regularly where, at the Alexis Park, you can find room after room of esoteric gear--much of which costs more than many houses. Considering the manufactures are there trying to convince people to buy their expensive gear, it's a safe bet they put a lot of effort into setting it up. The high-end press reports every year on all the wonderful sounding stuff they heard at CES so hopefully that qualifies?
The Alexis Park is a wonderful retreat from the convention centers at CES (which are crowded with no place to sit down). So I enjoy wandering from room to room and stopping in to plunk down and listen to music in a peaceful environment for a while. I've heard some great speakers at the A.P. and it's always fun to look at the construction and the shear creativity of some of the high-end manufactures. It's also fun to talk with some of the designers.
So yeah, I've listened to everything from total overkill systems where the amplifiers had to be brought in with a forklift to 7 watt single-ended triode amps driving bizarre horn loaded speakers from Germany.
I also frequent high-end dealers (as I said, I used to work for one) and I do consulting on high-end custom home installs which sometimes has me involved with really high-end gear.
Most consider my own system somewhat "high-end" but I suspect you would not. Why do you ask?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.