huh? this calls for tone controls/equalizers and such.....
but many are already doing this, using botique capacitors, cables and such, may i refer you to the blowtorch thread?
Indeed and if you can accept that the mechanism is psychological and not insist that I should believe it resides in the amp we can dispense with this discussion. Otherwise you will have to provide evidence that those with different ears and brains can hear your placebo.
vacuphile, bonfis
Let's be careful not to get off track with this kind of 'phenomena'. It might poison the effort here. My reply to the shutter spring example highlighted that there could be a real difference in the recorded film due to the tension profile of the spring (ie: how it behaves under load). I don't want a psycho touchy feeley vs. hard numbers debate here. Those have been done already and are tiresome. I am trying to bridge the knowledge of both.
AJT
So, are you taking the position that adding additional circuitry and components to the audio chain will not degrade any of the sonic postulates?
Let's be careful not to get off track with this kind of 'phenomena'. It might poison the effort here. My reply to the shutter spring example highlighted that there could be a real difference in the recorded film due to the tension profile of the spring (ie: how it behaves under load). I don't want a psycho touchy feeley vs. hard numbers debate here. Those have been done already and are tiresome. I am trying to bridge the knowledge of both.
AJT
So, are you taking the position that adding additional circuitry and components to the audio chain will not degrade any of the sonic postulates?
Last edited:
Interesting, my new camera has a sexy sounding shutter and funnily enough the family is posing for pictures with much less hassle and applied electric shocks.......
The post below by fas42 needs to be highlighted because it represents the essence of the goal here and its significance to your audio experience.
... which must be the reason why smartphones and tablets have pretty realistic shutter sound generators. 😉
But this is exactly what you've suggested, putting numbers on psycho touchy-feely thingies, that nobody can even prove exist...and amazingly can be proven to mostly not exist at all when we're talking about amplifiers as the thread suggests, to where the testing methods get dragged through the mud by audiophiles clinging dangerously to their illusions.
Oh, ghosts exist!
No they don't.
Yes, they do!
Prove it.
OH HURRR YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DON'T HURR.
If they existed outside of the brain of the person inventing them in the first place, they would have been named already.
This whole thing is f------ s-----.
That bridge requires not only that you deal with the "psycho touchy feeley" element, which is where your proposed qualities currently reside, but that you also measure them. Asserting their existence as a given and going blithely ahead with a discussion of the need for agreement on their definition or worse yet the possible causes of these undemonstrated effects is simply nonsense.
To be clear, perceptual impressions can be measured. There is a record of doing just that in the history of psychology and psychoacoustics. That will need to be done for timbral, PraT and soundstage. It will require a major effort of the sort that many contributors to this discussion are intimately familiar with. There is no substitute. Arguments over shutter springs will not move things forward and will never resolve the issue.
There was a blind listening test, level matched, on 3 (wildly different) amplifiers - Aura, Densen and Jolida, in Macedonian electronics magazine Emiter, in year 1997:
Code:
www.emiter.com.mk/poveke.php?napis_id=3606
Code:
www.emiter.com.mk/poveke.php?napis_id=3607Cheers, John Curl!
Last edited:
I assert that the glory of the sound coming from my speakers is related entirely to the number of angels shaping the sound. Let's not quibble about the existence of angels, or how to measure their number and just get on with designing amps that attract more angels.
Here are few points of interest,
That the amount of current that can be delivered to a load in a transient and recovery time.
The type of power supply the amplifier has.
The amount of sag in a PSU and the bass drive.
Its interesting that different amps have different coupling.
People try DC coupling, transformer coupling, capacitor coupling.
The amount and type of load on a system.
Type of output PP and SE all of which is inferred "sound" the same ?..
Makes HIFI a bit pointless doesn't it.
If accuracy of signal is paramount but all amps sound the same..then all amps are accurate?
I would think the interaction of the amplifier and transducer is an important issue.
Its a bit like saying a passive pre sounds the same as an active one? (all they add is gain)
The level of noise depends on gain in a section..but not so important in low gain systems..
THD has an effect but amplifiers with incredibly low THD can and sometimes do sound lacking.
A mix of tube and SS is supposed to sound the same as SS or all tube if its designed correctly.
Perhaps they just aren't designed correctly..😀
Is "sound" money related or design related..before you say its design related then midfi should be the same as more expensive gear.
Perhaps its all just market hype and a Mini system is all you need.
Regards
M. Gregg
That the amount of current that can be delivered to a load in a transient and recovery time.
The type of power supply the amplifier has.
The amount of sag in a PSU and the bass drive.
Its interesting that different amps have different coupling.
People try DC coupling, transformer coupling, capacitor coupling.
The amount and type of load on a system.
Type of output PP and SE all of which is inferred "sound" the same ?..
Makes HIFI a bit pointless doesn't it.
If accuracy of signal is paramount but all amps sound the same..then all amps are accurate?
I would think the interaction of the amplifier and transducer is an important issue.
Its a bit like saying a passive pre sounds the same as an active one? (all they add is gain)
The level of noise depends on gain in a section..but not so important in low gain systems..
THD has an effect but amplifiers with incredibly low THD can and sometimes do sound lacking.
A mix of tube and SS is supposed to sound the same as SS or all tube if its designed correctly.
Perhaps they just aren't designed correctly..😀
Is "sound" money related or design related..before you say its design related then midfi should be the same as more expensive gear.
Perhaps its all just market hype and a Mini system is all you need.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Someone who shares pretty much the same views I do:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
bonfis
We don't need to measure sound stage to experience it with our senses and the same goes for timbral accuracy and PRat. It doesn't matter that each individual has a different perception of what is right to them for the purposes of this framework so long as no one else can provide another sound characteristic that isn't explained by the three I've submitted. The standards will work themselves out later as distribution curves. What is key today is that we get a verbal description of everything we expect to hear and determine what electrical changes effect each attribute the most. Member jcx planted the first foot on this path with his posts even though he is dubious of the effort and its validity. Kudos to him and anyone else willing to do more than just offer negativity and noise.
BigE
Didn't I just warn everyone about posts like yours?
I understand the disdain of the technically proficient here but they need to loosen the grip on their tenets if we are to go forward. This will become a technical discussion later but we need to agree that the three audio postulates I've put forward are everything we need or want to hear in audio playback. If not, put forward something better that gives a clearer categorization. A member has emailed me privately and suggested that level might be included as a descriptor. I purposefully excluded it as a descriptor because it is not really a representation of the signal but only an amplification or enlargement of the original. The best analogy I can draw is a reprint of a 35mm film to an larger print. It can also described adequately by timbral accuracy and possibly soundstage.
We don't need to measure sound stage to experience it with our senses and the same goes for timbral accuracy and PRat. It doesn't matter that each individual has a different perception of what is right to them for the purposes of this framework so long as no one else can provide another sound characteristic that isn't explained by the three I've submitted. The standards will work themselves out later as distribution curves. What is key today is that we get a verbal description of everything we expect to hear and determine what electrical changes effect each attribute the most. Member jcx planted the first foot on this path with his posts even though he is dubious of the effort and its validity. Kudos to him and anyone else willing to do more than just offer negativity and noise.
BigE
Didn't I just warn everyone about posts like yours?
I understand the disdain of the technically proficient here but they need to loosen the grip on their tenets if we are to go forward. This will become a technical discussion later but we need to agree that the three audio postulates I've put forward are everything we need or want to hear in audio playback. If not, put forward something better that gives a clearer categorization. A member has emailed me privately and suggested that level might be included as a descriptor. I purposefully excluded it as a descriptor because it is not really a representation of the signal but only an amplification or enlargement of the original. The best analogy I can draw is a reprint of a 35mm film to an larger print. It can also described adequately by timbral accuracy and possibly soundstage.
Last edited:
Why are you interested in audio?
I assume you have been to HIFI demonstrations and this is now what you believe?
A simple decent circuit from a magazine will suffice with good cheap interconnects.
Nothing wrong with it..what ever floats you boat..😀 What I would say is..
I have listened to some very good MIDFI systems..
I have been very happy in the past with DIY SS designs. Using standard cables etc.
Its not until I listened to some systems in a HIFI demonstration that I started to wonder what was going on...Not all of them were good!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
One thing I would say,
The environment and power levels will make this "Voicing" very difficult.
I don't believe one size fits all situations.
If you "Voice" an amp in a room and take it somewhere else you might have a surprise! (I know I've done it) 😀
The environmental impact is something to hear..power levels are another issue.
If you want to hear the impact at its worse play your HIFI in the bathroom or in a large open space or hall with echo.
Regards
M. Gregg
The environment and power levels will make this "Voicing" very difficult.
I don't believe one size fits all situations.
If you "Voice" an amp in a room and take it somewhere else you might have a surprise! (I know I've done it) 😀
The environmental impact is something to hear..power levels are another issue.
If you want to hear the impact at its worse play your HIFI in the bathroom or in a large open space or hall with echo.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
M Gregg
Exactly, it's not meant to be a one size fits all system but a way to determine how to build what we want to hear. Your post has triggered a new insight for me about how to interpret level, thanks.
Yes, that sort of thing is well-known and dates back much earlier (Greiner's work in the late 1970s, for example, and he wasn't the first).
That has zero to do with timing effects in a musical sense, which was the context of my comment and this thread.
This is a major issue when trying to compare systems or amplifiers.
If you hear a component in one demonstration room and a different system somewhere else you can't really make a decision.
Ie the playing "field" is different. The damping in the room is effecting the frequency you hear.
That's the point of tone controls..😀..if you select a system in a room don't expect it to be the same at home.
If you use component changes or design to an environment <<you see the problem!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.