Voicing an amplifier: general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#241
DrDyna said:
In fact, you can usually just tell people that are listening to your gear that you've now replaced the "thing" with some fancier high end "thing", and while having actually changed nothing at all, you play the track again and the listener is like "Oh, yeah, holy crap, that one is so much better, listen to that silky smooth midrange".
Click to expand...

But this is not proper scientific method. The test should be whether a (statistically significant) difference is heard, in a well structured test.
You look for correlations, either positive or negative.
 
#242
Much of my experience that is also known to most here comes from Parasound, and that is why I used it as an example.
We have the same discussions with Constellation or Audible Illusions, almost on a weekly basis. This is what I find makes a successful design. If you can make a practical audio design and get wonderful user feedback from it, then go for it. Measurements only please! '-)
 
#244
rayma said:
But this is not proper scientific method. The test should be whether a (statistically significant) difference is heard, in a well structured test.
You look for correlations, either positive or negative.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that..what I'm trying to say is, most of the time, we don't even have to get to a point where testing is necessary, it's much easier to just outright prove it to be crap by tricking the person.

The steps are like...

1.) Can I just tell you something is different and you'll think there is. (If YES, END, if NO, proceed to step 2.

2.) So you aren't fooled by my trick and noticed nothing changed, let's actually change something (without you knowing or seeing me do it) and see if you notice. (If YES, go to 3, if NO...END.

3.) Congratulations, NOBODY HAS EVER GOTTEN HERE. Now we can start talking about the differences and naming them. We can't act like we get here every day, because when we're talking about amplifiers, this step doesn't exist...so why talk about all the things that can be noticed during this step if they're all complete garbage that can't even reliably be identified to exist outside of the audiophile's brain in the first place?
 
#245
yldouright said:
Welcome and yes, a major point of this thread is to establish a way for designers to make what people want to hear.
Click to expand...
You are confusing two quite different things: what people want to hear, and what accurately (within the state of the art, and within a person's budget and other constraints) reproduces a sound. Personally, I want the latter but many do not.

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.
Click to expand...
I don't think you do understand. In the early days of sound reproduction people did experiments to determine what level of performance was required from the electronics in order for reproduced sound to be indistinguishable from live instruments. As in all other areas of analogue electronics this was posed in the form of distortion, frequency response etc. The experiments gave a result. You seem to want to sweep away all this genuine science and invent your own, based on marketing terms used by people spreading FUD for commercial purposes. Surely much better to refine the existing data than invent new fuzzy concepts such as Prat or soundstage?
 
#246
DF96
Surely much better to refine the existing data than invent new fuzzy concepts such as Prat or soundstage?
Click to expand...
I submit PRaT and soundstage are genuine audible characteristics so why the prejudice against them? It doesn't matter that that they are not measurable by any known standard today as long as we acknowledge and agree on the definition. Once we do that, its reality will emerge as we learn how to enhance/create those effects with changes in electrical characteristics. Conversely, you can create a standardized sheet of measurements of various distortions and present them to an end user and they will be even more meaningless to them for predicting what to expect in their audio playback as my three audio postulates are to an engineer for measurement purposes today. At the very least, my postulates provide an avenue of cognitive discourse between the two camps. Without it, engineers can bully laymen into believing their gear must sound better because it measures better. The purchaser comes home with the new precision gear, plays his content for twenty minutes and realizes most of his recordings sound better on his old set. Then comes the inevitable finger pointing to everything else save the amp because that measures perfectly. Sort of puts a new perspective on the term blameless doesn't it?
 
#247
One thing I would say,

You can modify an amp as much as you want, but you will never make it sound better than the source. That includes the recording..

If a system is very open it can make recordings sound sterile..
Now here is the rub, in any amp are you listening to the parts and circuit or the music? ie is there any added sound from the electronics? (keep in mind that without the electronics there is no sound) Or are we saying they are in stealth mode (no impact at all).
Or are we saying that the circuit design effects the impact of the parts? (Then again if all amps sound the same then what's the point?)
If there has been an improvement over years of music reproduction is it amplifier design or the source?
Or are the parts now invisible (sonically) and added to the sound in the past?

Regards
M. Gregg
 
Last edited:
#249
Sound quality Vs measurements..Déjà vu

A comment which will be battered within an inch of its life..
The reason a new amp can sound worse in a system is either it is inferior or more revealing.

Regards
M. Gregg
 
Last edited:
#250
DrDyna said:
Yeah, I understand that..what I'm trying to say is, most of the time, we don't even have to get to a point where testing is necessary, it's much easier to just outright prove it to be crap by tricking the person.

Anyone can be fooled under the right circumstances, just look at the stock market. But, that's not the point.
A design engineer can use whatever method he feels works for him in the design process, because the result is what counts.
In prototyping, you need to iterate between measurement and careful listening to make the kind of progress that really refines a circuit's sound quality.
Those who fail to do this leave part of their design's potential on the table.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#251
To correlate electronic changes to sonic qualities would take an enormous experiment. I seem to remember it was proposed in the past and it was just too much of a hassle for anyone to bother. Enough people need to really want it, IE want it with time and money.
 
#252
keantoken
I know you have referred to this effort being old news twice. If you can, please post a link to review. I don't mind giving up credit where it is due.

M Gregg
The one glaring distinction is the lone protagonist here trying to build a bridge between both.

cliffforest
:whazzat:
 
Last edited:
#253
keantoken said:
To correlate electronic changes to sonic qualities would take an enormous experiment. I seem to remember it was proposed in the past and it was just too much of a hassle for anyone to bother. Enough people need to really want it, IE want it with time and money.
Click to expand...

Yes, this really can only be dealt with effectively in a very specific context, on a circuit design right in front of you on the bench,
not in the sense of trying to prove something, but to make a better sounding device.
 
#254
rayma said:
Anyone can be fooled under the right circumstances, just look at the stock market. But, that's not the point.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody has ever fooled me and sold be a black and white tv that I thought was color, simply because they told me it was, yet this happens every day in the audio world. Someone buys some amplifier because a sales person told them it was more open sounding or whatever awful, meaningless term they pull out of whatever cesspit they keep these things, then they bring this thing home partially confused and lighter in the wallet, and it's like they skip past all the steps of shame, right to anger and denial, and all that anger and denial spills out into forums..with bored engineers..and here we are on page 26 trying to dodge goofball ideas and maybe help someone in the process.

So we've got confused audiophiles who don't understand how a gain stage works s---ing up forums, regurgitating buzzwords, and "Oh, I like this song so I'm tapping my feet, HEY how do I describe this sensation so I can pick a better amplifier because that makes a difference and blah blah soundstage blah pace poop imaging and OH THE LIFTED VEILS, and you guys are all crazy, because this one time at band camp I put foil on my blah blah and now it sounds warm and happy and butterflies and BLAH...

So anyway, enjoy the show, a few people have tried, but it looks like it's all downhill from here.
 
#255
SY said:
I've listened to a fair share of live music over the years. Lots of PA systems ranging from wonderful to horrible, so lots of amplifiers. Lots of boards, lots of EQ settings, lots of frequency response variations. The pace, rhythm, and timing were in every case completely determined by the musicians...
Click to expand...

But that misses a HUGE point. Close, but still a miss. Think about it. You'll find it eventually. It's very important in live performance.
 
#257
Of course that said, this thread has gone completely of the rails.
  1. Those who advocate voicing are providing no evidence, no technical details, no data.
  2. Those who get all hot about technical issues are providing nothing but scorn. No evidence, no technical details, no data.

Basically hopeless. 😡
 
#258
Pano said:
But that misses a HUGE point. Close, but still a miss. Think about it. You'll find it eventually. It's very important in live performance.
Click to expand...

Pano, and SY, a very quick off-topic question. I looked around but I can't find the answer, (that I've never had to ask in 7 years until this thread...) what's the official policy on swearing?

I ask because I just opened a fresh bottle, which may or may not determine if I have to un-subscribe from this thread until tomorrow morning 😉:cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom