An interesting take on this, with a lot odf sensible points, is here.
You got to go beyond the first boring minutes (I almost killed it) but its worth to listen to further on when they start to talk about the difference between 'better' and 'accuracy' and the audible differences between DACs. Worth your time.
Jan
Meta-data mining for results -
IEEE in my email has an article about data mining and how it will help all kinds of issues and subjects and fields. Which just reminds me again ---
I like to use the very real and used everyday example of medicine. Data mining has uncovered many trends and correlations etc. Potential medical treatment often starts with a double blind test but eventually, over a broader spectrum and larger numbers, show what at first looked promising has not worked as the DBT showed it would.
In sound/audio perception is very much like this. The DBT is a first step. But you can Not over look the meta-data that follows. If all over the world, over a long time and very diverse peoples, they indicate something which goes against that DBT, you must take the field data as also having validity.
This is the part here which is ignored. When a large diverse group of people over a long time say they perceive something the same way, then it is that way.... even if it goes against a DBT.
Can you imagine the medical field doing what we attempt to do.... ignore the huge field reports/input from doctors and hospitals and patients over time because it doesnt match the DBT results? Pharma would love it. vested interests? When the DBT and the larger field data agree, you have something to hang your hat on.
Best to find out why and get back to the blackboard/lab on it. So what do we have that agree and what do we have that we disagree on - re DBT and the larger field data?
THx-RNMarsh
IEEE in my email has an article about data mining and how it will help all kinds of issues and subjects and fields. Which just reminds me again ---
I like to use the very real and used everyday example of medicine. Data mining has uncovered many trends and correlations etc. Potential medical treatment often starts with a double blind test but eventually, over a broader spectrum and larger numbers, show what at first looked promising has not worked as the DBT showed it would.
In sound/audio perception is very much like this. The DBT is a first step. But you can Not over look the meta-data that follows. If all over the world, over a long time and very diverse peoples, they indicate something which goes against that DBT, you must take the field data as also having validity.
This is the part here which is ignored. When a large diverse group of people over a long time say they perceive something the same way, then it is that way.... even if it goes against a DBT.
Can you imagine the medical field doing what we attempt to do.... ignore the huge field reports/input from doctors and hospitals and patients over time because it doesnt match the DBT results? Pharma would love it. vested interests? When the DBT and the larger field data agree, you have something to hang your hat on.
Best to find out why and get back to the blackboard/lab on it. So what do we have that agree and what do we have that we disagree on - re DBT and the larger field data?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The medical example you wrote is the exact opposite effect of what happens in audio.
Medicine: DBT show something works. Translation to audio: Something is audible.
Then through data mining it is shown not to work. Translation to audio: No audible result.
Your example is a perfect example of why DBT work so good, although they are not perfect, witch no one is claiming they are.
I believe something.
Science says its wrong.
Science must be wrong.
This "science" not necessarily uses technically best equipment for the tests. "Scientific" proofs regarding audibility of smallest interchannel time difference, smallest distortion or pitch have evolved in last 80 years and have not been completed yet.
What's amusing is seeing some of the exchanges in Audio Amateur 35 years ago. Same arguments about unmeasurable but somehow audible differences, and here we are 35 years later and not a shred of evidence supporting that notion has yet surfaced. Same excuses, though: you're deaf, your system sucks, having to rely on ears alone causes mysterious inhibitions that don't seem to apply to frequency response, level, noise, compression, and other demonstrably audible phenomena.
Have I mentioned the alien abductions with anal probing yet?
Have I mentioned the alien abductions with anal probing yet?
"Better" means better speaker control, more fine detail, better place allocation of the performers, cleaner and better defined bass notes, more composed as the volume/power increases (i.e. less change of tonality across the band, must not be good at low volume but not so good at high velume).
An amp capable of doing all the brilliantly is the first thing after the perfect amp, so it's reasonable to expect that some balancing will come to play and may influence the individual listener as per his own list of primary things he looks for, giving some advantage to this rather than that.
Regarding measurements, I expect the usual measurements done in any test, such as THD, IM, S/R, voltage slew rate, TIM if any, damping factor across the band, power output as per FTC standards, an all cases for both 8 and 4 Ohms nominal loads, plus an investigation into 2 Ohm loads for 20 mS impulses (as per IEC standards).
Is that clear anough, or do you now need me to to come over and connect all the test gear wires for you because you didn't understand the question - again?
An amp capable of doing all the brilliantly is the first thing after the perfect amp, so it's reasonable to expect that some balancing will come to play and may influence the individual listener as per his own list of primary things he looks for, giving some advantage to this rather than that.
Regarding measurements, I expect the usual measurements done in any test, such as THD, IM, S/R, voltage slew rate, TIM if any, damping factor across the band, power output as per FTC standards, an all cases for both 8 and 4 Ohms nominal loads, plus an investigation into 2 Ohm loads for 20 mS impulses (as per IEC standards).
Is that clear anough, or do you now need me to to come over and connect all the test gear wires for you because you didn't understand the question - again?
I just want to point out that 35 years ago, the best we could do was .001% or -100dB, either with IM or Harmonic distortion, and that was in the midrange. At frequency extremes, the distortion residual was worse. Problems with Tantalum and ceramic caps were virtually ignored until we put up measurements, back 35 or more years ago. DA or dielectric absorption was virtually unknown in the audio community until Richard Marsh put it in TAA, about 35 years ago. I certainly ignored it at the time. We did make progress at the time, and now it is taken for granted.
When it comes to making a 'successful' power amp, a number of factors must be optimized: Damping factor over frequency is important, as well as the order of the measured distortion between 100mW and 10W, and this is very important, and many amps fail.
Other factors are slew rate, peak current drive, and safe area are also very important. Virtually all power amps have the same basic frequency response, so this is not where the amp 'signature' is generated, contrary to the opinion of many here.
Other factors are slew rate, peak current drive, and safe area are also very important. Virtually all power amps have the same basic frequency response, so this is not where the amp 'signature' is generated, contrary to the opinion of many here.
I wouldn't be so harsh. I suspect you understood my questions just fine. You just don't want to answer them, and that's certainly your right.
If you ever feel like defining "sounds better" and specifically which "measurements" you mean, we can have a meaningful discussion. If you want to pretend you have no idea of what these mean, that's a pity, but again, it's your right to do so.
Not too bad a go at it - the Bryston I heard recently did exactly that, made virtually all the other amps at the audio show "sound" like bits o' junk - in spite of them having "good" technical measurements ...
Unfortunately, the audio testing gear made these days still doesn't have a switch marked, "Detecting fine detail resolution", and therefore, logically, such misbehaviour doesn't exist - we will have to wait, perhaps decades, until a manufacturer decides to add such functionality ...
+1
The whole truth about power Amps in just few simple sentence ! , where I think the most important sentence is about Amplifier measured THD performance between 100mW and 10W , (or even better between 0W and 10W ) .
Best Regards !
I have Tubes amps that are dead silent, meaning there is zero noise through the speakers when the volume is cranked full without input signal - This is mentioned in a professional review of the amp-. These Tube amps reveal recording detail equal to top SS amps, say Bryston for example because I've owned More Bryston than I can remember over the last 30 years as they're popular around here and built 40 minutes from me..
These tube amp have 1-2 percent THD.. Does this mean THD has no real importance in the real Listening world, of accuracy and exposure the the recording resolution and fine detail ?
Same Tube amps, to my ears have more bass control and better pitch definition than the Bryston 4B SST, side by side comparison.. So much for Slew Rate meaning anything as I assume Slew rate on tube designs is measured worse than SS? Maybe dynamic headroom on tubes is measured better?
I'm No expert on Amp design.. Just Sayin!
These tube amp have 1-2 percent THD.. Does this mean THD has no real importance in the real Listening world, of accuracy and exposure the the recording resolution and fine detail ?
Same Tube amps, to my ears have more bass control and better pitch definition than the Bryston 4B SST, side by side comparison.. So much for Slew Rate meaning anything as I assume Slew rate on tube designs is measured worse than SS? Maybe dynamic headroom on tubes is measured better?
I'm No expert on Amp design.. Just Sayin!
Human ears are much more tolerant of distortion than frequency response errors- the latter are common with tube amps given their relatively high output impedances. Some people like that. Some people prefer a flat response. Some speakers want a high and specific source impedance to perform optimally. The vast majority don't and are designed assuming a low source impedance.
Some people prefer some distortion, feeling that it gives more "detail." Others want an amplifier that does nothing audible to the signal other than making it bigger.
This is the problem with using vague terms like "sounds better" and expecting to have a sensible conversation. Better to whom? How? In what application? Determined in what manner?
Also possible. But just as likely, the frequency response deviations and distortion may be appealing.
The sound in almost any room at the High End Show in Munich this year was poor.
So what.
High End Audio is not about the sound any more. That is a matter of fact.
New companies advertise improvements but in real life i can not hear them.
Technology without the human condition does not cut the mustart.
You simply can not measure " quality " and you can not trust a subjective experience of a single person.
Both sides are wrong on this one.
So what.
High End Audio is not about the sound any more. That is a matter of fact.
New companies advertise improvements but in real life i can not hear them.
Technology without the human condition does not cut the mustart.
You simply can not measure " quality " and you can not trust a subjective experience of a single person.
Both sides are wrong on this one.
"Some people prefer some distortion, feeling that it gives more "detail."
This statement makes no sense.. Mistaking distortion for detail and resolution that is built in a recording?
Recording detail is recording detail.. We each know our many thousands of recordings well and have heard them over and over on many different systems, with a goal, that is in most cases, to continue to improve on the equipment as to get closer to the recorded architecture.. Agree, some like a lot of color and don't go down the path of obtaining more accurate equipment..
They will always be added signature or something stripped away, however small, however large, from SS amps too, but certainly the destination of complete accuracy can become nearer..
This statement makes no sense.. Mistaking distortion for detail and resolution that is built in a recording?
Recording detail is recording detail.. We each know our many thousands of recordings well and have heard them over and over on many different systems, with a goal, that is in most cases, to continue to improve on the equipment as to get closer to the recorded architecture.. Agree, some like a lot of color and don't go down the path of obtaining more accurate equipment..
They will always be added signature or something stripped away, however small, however large, from SS amps too, but certainly the destination of complete accuracy can become nearer..
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.