Glad to hear that. I mean it.
When I thought of it first, like 20+ years ago, I wasn't sure it was such a hot idea because even then, it seems changing of gear was what most people were in it for, and it seemed obvious to me that these would be strictly dedicated amps, made especially for a set pair of loudspeakers.
True, parameters could be subsequently changed for another, but I don't think many people would go for it, not in this consumer society.
So I am very pleased to discover just now that the idea was not a crazy one.
Interesting comment. Which begs the question: do we need to know about our hearing to determine if two things sound different? If you want to measure two voltage sources to see if they are different, do you need to know the internal workings of the digital multimeter you use?
jan
Perhaps not to determine whether two things sound different, more like correlating the difference with our hearing process.
You know, we all like being lied to, at least sometimes. We hear an audio device we like, and on occasion we are aware that what we are hearing is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that the original sound has been altered somewhere along the way, but it can still sound good and satisyfing even if we know we are being lied to.
Example: In my wild and misspent youth, I used to bang on the drums. Never mind that I had given it up, the point is I know first hand EXACTLY how drums should sound. My Marantz 1152 DC integrated does the job of reproducing drums reasonably well, but not outstandingly so, it sort of paints them in more gentle colours than they should be.
My H/K 6550 integrated does a better job of recreating the sheer energy and impetus of drums, it gets the drive in exactly the right gear, and is overall better at it than the Marantz.
I love my H/K 6550, but I also love the Marantz just as much, if not a tad better. I know it's a little off the mark, but it still sounds good and pleasureable to me.
Now I'll stick my neck out for Wavebourn and Thorsten and say this - tube gear is like that, it lies like hell but still sounds good on occasion (through no fault of its own, not in these fast buck days, when you just stick any ol' tube in and hike the price up 25%).
Tube gear is like a shady woman - in the morning, she will tell you were the greatest lover in the world last night, you know she's lying to you, but it sure feels good to hear it said.
I'll be off to write down my Last Will now, before Wavebourn and Thorsten manage to gather a posse.
Last edited:
So nothing, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't bother me a bit, in fact, I rather like the idea.
But I'm not sure how well accepted it would be by the general audio public, goven that many simply can't resist changing every few months or so.
Hi,
I'm not into sports, unless you count those usually involving horizontal positions or the hunt of the lucky journey cat for the white tiger, shooting rifles and when I was in better shape climb the occasional easy mountain.
So do not trust me...
Ciao T
I'm not into sports, unless you count those usually involving horizontal positions or the hunt of the lucky journey cat for the white tiger, shooting rifles and when I was in better shape climb the occasional easy mountain.
So do not trust me...
Ciao T
Becasuse of dissatisfaction. As soon as they find that all they try sounds worse than stationary system they give up and concentrate on listening to the music itself. People change equipment when they hear it. When they almost don't hear it they ignore it. Why to change something that is not audible, huh?
A wise man once told me , never trust a man not into sports, booze, nor womanize. Tube amp deficiencies aside , T can be trusted .........
Well, the above also very effciently eliminates me as well. I think of "sports" on TV as a massive buisness in which little is left to chance since too many people stand to lose too much, although I have an excellent tolerance to alcohol it does nothing for me (except for beer, cider, porto, sherry and Cointreau
- but I will drink some like about twice a year, except for beer, which i do use much more regularly, must be my Austrian/German roots), and I definitely do not womenize.A wise man once wrote - only a coward loves many women, a brave man risks everything and loves just one.
As for Thorsten, all I can say is this - over the last 11 or 12 years we've "known" each other over the Internet, he hasn't let me down once. Which is why I put so much stock in his advice. And he has not once failed to respond to an honest question. Not many like that around.
Hunting is a sport , but you like tubes , so it's a wash ...
Well, the above also very effciently eliminates me as well. I think of "sports" on TV as a massive buisness in which little is left to chance since too many people stand to lose too much, although I have an excellent tolerance to alcohol it does nothing for me (except for beer, cider, porto, sherry and Cointreau
A wise man once wrote - only a coward loves many women, a brave man risks everything and loves just one.
As for Thorsten, all I can say is this - over the last 11 or 12 years we've "known" each other over the Internet, he hasn't let me down once. Which is why I put so much stock in his advice. And he has not once failed to respond to an honest question. Not many like that around.
I'm sure there was womanizing before the "one" .....
Jan,
1. Could it be that listeners preferred filtered version because it also removed HF "garbage" present at the SACD player output?
2. What other equipment was in signal chain during your experiment?
Best,
...
I'm sure there was womanizing before the "one" .....
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "womenizing"?
If you mean did I chase girls, of course I did. Mostly downhill.
If you mean was there anyone serious, yes, there were a few, I don't deny it. We all needed to sow some wild oats in our early twenties, I think.
Looking back, I think it's all in aid of developing a clear idea of who you want to spend your life with. When I met my wife, in 1983, it took me all of 10 minutes to realize that she was most probably The One.
We met in January 1983 and got married in February 1984. Our son was born in February 1986, we waited a little to fill up our home with what we thought we needed.
And ever since then, I have known nothing but happiness at home; sure, there were a few fights over this or that, there will be a few yet to come, no doubt, but never, not for a split second, was any one of them anything more than a heated discussion we knew we would get through.
Also, being self-employed, I was also blessed with having spent each and every moment of his life with my son. He has just turned 26, and of all that time, we were not together for just 224 days, including his weekends with grandpa and grandma, his summer vacations with them, my absence for various trips, etc.
I submit that without a normal and healthy life at home, you ain't goin' nowhere - fail at home and you can't really succeed in anything, and even if you do, it's a Phyrric victory at best.
Well since I was one of the listeners, I can tell you that to the best of my ability I was perceiving seemingly more hf stuff; as if there was more hf content in the signal, when actually the filter was in the chain.
Now I'm 65 years old and my hearing probably drops to the bottom of Grand Canyon above 10kHz, so how come I could here it? And the other two had the exact same experience.
Now, since that day I've been thinking. Look at the attached scope shots.
The one coming through the filter has the strong ripple on the leading edge of a transient signal.
Could it be that we actually heard that ripple - it DOES cause increased levels of harmonics. But, if that is the case, we actually heard those ripples from far lower frequencies than those near 15kHz.
Now we know that settling time ripples are just a time domain manifestation of phase shift and/or non-linear group delay.
The conclusion then could be that, for instance, we hear post-DAC anti-alias filters not because they cut off ultrasonic frequencies, but because of the transient signal settling ripples they cause at much lower frequencies.
But I admit so far it's just an educated guess.
The equipment was SACD player through a diy preamp to the active speaker system that has integral MOSFET amps in the box (2 x 200W for mid and tweet, 2 x 200W bridged for the woofer). That system is VERY clean.
jan
Now I'm 65 years old and my hearing probably drops to the bottom of Grand Canyon above 10kHz, so how come I could here it? And the other two had the exact same experience.
Now, since that day I've been thinking. Look at the attached scope shots.
The one coming through the filter has the strong ripple on the leading edge of a transient signal.
Could it be that we actually heard that ripple - it DOES cause increased levels of harmonics. But, if that is the case, we actually heard those ripples from far lower frequencies than those near 15kHz.
Now we know that settling time ripples are just a time domain manifestation of phase shift and/or non-linear group delay.
The conclusion then could be that, for instance, we hear post-DAC anti-alias filters not because they cut off ultrasonic frequencies, but because of the transient signal settling ripples they cause at much lower frequencies.
But I admit so far it's just an educated guess.
The equipment was SACD player through a diy preamp to the active speaker system that has integral MOSFET amps in the box (2 x 200W for mid and tweet, 2 x 200W bridged for the woofer). That system is VERY clean.
jan
Attachments
Last edited:
Jan,
Your guesswork on why you heard it the way you heard it reminds me of some of my own claims not too long ago.
I did claim that I found Analog Devices op amps to sound generally better than many others. I attributed this fact not to their wild rise times and exorbitant slew rates, but to their incredibly short settling times.
The audio industry has been forever concerned with fast rise times and wild voltage slew rates, and it seems nobody, or hardly anybody, even bothers to think why so many devices doing great on those two fronts still don't sound right.
I maintain the we need to have settling times as short as possible and that we need good CURRENT slew rates. I don't, and I'm sure you don't either, want the amp ringing after the signal is gone. Heck, I don't want it ringing anyhow.
P.S. You're 65? Get outta here! You come across more like 45. Man, you're gonna live to 100.
Your guesswork on why you heard it the way you heard it reminds me of some of my own claims not too long ago.
I did claim that I found Analog Devices op amps to sound generally better than many others. I attributed this fact not to their wild rise times and exorbitant slew rates, but to their incredibly short settling times.
The audio industry has been forever concerned with fast rise times and wild voltage slew rates, and it seems nobody, or hardly anybody, even bothers to think why so many devices doing great on those two fronts still don't sound right.
I maintain the we need to have settling times as short as possible and that we need good CURRENT slew rates. I don't, and I'm sure you don't either, want the amp ringing after the signal is gone. Heck, I don't want it ringing anyhow.
P.S. You're 65? Get outta here! You come across more like 45. Man, you're gonna live to 100.
I asked about other equipment, because, IF signal coming from that particular SACD player contained any ultrasonic noise, it is not known how your preamp or power amp behaved in each case.
Maybe it would be wise to conduct similar test with other signal source(s)?
Some known "good sounding" CD player or vinyl playback perhaps?
Those are just a few thoughts.
EDIT - Ringing is usually associated with "harsh" sound. Some people percieve "harsh" as in "more highs". I am also surprised that, if your steep filter was constructed of active devices, you didn't report any sound degradation.
Best,
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.