John just a little back posted a perfect example of NVH "engineering" - the sound wasn't right, but the usual measurements didn't show it, because they focus on the "primary engineering"; so he persisted until he found the cause of the issue - again, problem solved!
I don't think anyone is saying "sometimes amplifiers have development issues" but once they're on the shelf..Ok, for example...walk into an audio shop that has a selection of amplifiers in the range of $600 to $4000...and people are, for all intents and purposes...unable to detect a difference, unless coached.
As far as I know, that fact alone says it's a giant waste of time to try and coin, or even define existing terms...simply because all the existing terms are LIES that serve no purpose, other than for the person selling the amplifiers.
Any term at all that describes an amplifier's character is stupid, as the primary design intent is NO CHARACTER, which is statistically what happens, based on the FACT that the consumer can't discern them at all, unless coached....and can then have his opinion changes by mere trickery.
If you can trick someone into thinking an amplifier has qualities that it can't by using words coming out of the salesman's mouth, then how do we even begin to get to a place where a group of people who understand how things work (like here, mostly) can compile a list?
How does one make a list or define something that can't even be reasonably proven to exist at all? I mean sure, some people here would have a point if there was at least evidence beyond anecdotal to support the position, but ...I know I've said this before, maybe I'm just retarded and I don't understand it.
That's something that Bob Carver did for show and tell at the magazines, to make his solid state amps sound more like tubes. They liked it.
citation for the number please. 😉
I'm pretty good with the rest of it. There is this speaker/amp interaction thing going on too though, and output impedance seems to matter.
Right. The people who listen have determined that, subjectively and set out to improve them. Those who don't listen aren't being asked to change them or even buy the improved ones.
That's the guy who's doing the changes - if he didn't hear an improvement he wouldn't bother.
Wrong.
Yes, the goal is the absence of 'character' - no audible distortion contributed by the amplifier, two competent amplifiers should sound identical, no matter what technology was used in the design ...
Sure, check most any amplifier review in Stereophile. They do a good job checking for this with a simulated loudspeaker load.
Several dB of variation in some amps can be seen. This is certainly a case where measured results can correlate with sound.
Just use your impedance curve instead.
Last edited:
I hope I'm wrong when I suggest this thread is not going to end well.
How many times can the same thing be said, on either side, before the frustration, anxiety or angst gets the better of someone?
How many times can the same thing be said, on either side, before the frustration, anxiety or angst gets the better of someone?
Perhaps the original poster could research these stereophile articles, count how many of them praise soundstage and report back with the output impedances of those amps?
Perhaps there is a correlation?
But what they don't do, which is absolutely what you do want to know, is how the distortion spectrum alters when the load is made closer to a realistic one - that would most likely tell an awful lot if looked at closely ...
The only reason I use numbers like that is just so I have a way to say "every" without being absolute, because people love to jump on absolutes, like "Oh, I once knew this guy who's cousin from yugoslavia did the blah blah and you're wrong because you used absolutes."
There's not going to be a citation for any number I use, if there is, I'll paste it..otherwise, just interpret it as a rounded number.
We just listen, like fas42 said, with a good playback system and we change only the product that we are working on. If we can't hear it, then we generally don't change it. Hopefully we catch the problems before the product is released. Sometimes, we have been overconfident and the reviewers get it first. Not a good thing, but still it is worthwhile to get it right, when we are alerted to a problem.
Subjectively, ok..so, you're saying the same exact thing others have said..."I have no proof, but yadda yadda."
But how do we sort out the people that actually hear changes from the people that don't but say they do? That's why we do testing, and that's why any anecdotal or subjective opinion means exactly nothing, because there's nothing attached to it besides personal feeling....which changes...always...
K, cool, I guess I lose.
That´s the point.
Trolling only substracts from the usefulness and enjoyability of this once great Forum.
Good for nothing minds who have nothing useful to add to the art of Audio waste bandwidth and resources posting nonsense, atracting and provoking fine minds into useless discussions, by the very simple trick of not acknowledging rebuttals and repeating time and again he same old white noise.
Ok, you're obviously sincere, so I'll make you a bet. Do you have an amplifier that you use regularly,
and that you are willing and able to make some hacks in? We'll use it for a test.
If you will send me the schematic, I'll bet you that at least one circuit change can be made, still within good engineering practice,
which you can hear and feel that it is better or worse in some way. I'll ask for three chances to try. Your decision is final.
Are you game? Maybe we can have some fun here for a change. As long as you don't use hearing aids, I'm game.
Last edited:
If you buy a new car, and report back to the dealer that there is a nasty 'artifact' in how it drives will he insist that you measure it before it's taken seriously. Likewise, will the mechanic allocated to look at it insist on getting a measure for the abberation, before believing that it exists?
'Proof' is something that only exists in mathmatics. Those who listen have the evidence presented to their ears, those who don't listen don't have that evidence.
If you want to sort them then why not ask them to describe the changes they claim they hear? Its rather like witnesses at the scene of an incident, is there any correlation between what different witnesses report? Just dismiss those who when cross-examined say 'its just better' but don't attempt to give any description of what they hear.
That looks to be a subjective opinion (that it means exactly nothing) so why do you share something that by your own stated standard means 'exactly nothing' ? Or do you have evidence (or 'proof') that it means 'exactly nothing' and have so far omitted to share it?
Incidentally who is 'we' here? Objectivists?
Depends on if he's an objectivist 🙂 Likewise a doctor who when his patient complains of a headache replies 'no evidence for that, come back when you have some proof please'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.