Probably something other than that tired old saw.
If the possibility of real technical differences in amplifiers having an effect on their output signal seems like fairies at the bottom of your garden, then no further discourse is possible.
It's worse than that. We have thread full of engineering types who can't believe that amplifiers are not perfect. Who can't accept that stability and output impedance make no difference to the final sound. And amplifier parameters that change with frequency, load and power levels would not be audible.
When smart people choose to ignore reality, just for the sake of dogma, there won't be much progress.
That wasn't Dave's point. No-one disagrees that technical differences in amplifiers have an effect on the output signal; a trivial example would be removing all the PNP devices in a complementary output stage.
The silliness is postulating differences not described by conventional engineering parameters, trying to tie those to ill-defined marketing terms, denial of the desire for an effects box, denial of the decades of data showing which amplification defects can be heard and the triviality of eliminating them, and the total lack of any analysis or data to back up extraordinary claims and assertions.
If someone wants an effects box, they should man up and say so. That's more likely to get them what they want.
I don't think amplifiers aren't perfect, I understand they're far from perfect. What I object to is that amplifier development should take an avenue where they become even less perfect, rather than the opposite, which is where everyone should be trying to go with it.
So, the first step would be to first pass this test. Then, we take our winnings, get all liquored up, and start a thread "First person in 20 years to pass the test seeks one other person who pass the test for meaningful discussion about amplifier attributes that only the two of us can discern."
I suspect the sudden increase in derision herein is probably due to my comment about having an amp forgive bad recordings. This was an unfortunate turn of phrase which has been interpreted to mean 'I will color my amps with distortion to make it euphonic' (ie: effects box). Let me clarify the comment:
An amp designer will trade off certain parameters for others and still remain within a blameless specification. The sonic effect of these compromises will either enhance or deteriorate the playback experience of your source material and I favor the compromises that enhance my three main categories of sound attributes. Some members have astutely noted that these postulates are quite similar to the ones used in the link submitted by member jcx. Some reading have acknowledged that the common tools and testing parameters we rely upon have limitations and suggested more comprehensive tests with greater resolution. I have no objection to this but access to this equipment along with the knowledge and environment required to use it is beyond the great majority of diyers and many engineers. Even if these tests become commonly done correctly, which implies a lot, what do they really tell most people about what they will get in their audio output? This is where my method will succeed more than what is being used today. I know its fuzzy nature sends chills up the spine of many here but it will work if it is adopted on a significant scale.
An amp designer will trade off certain parameters for others and still remain within a blameless specification. The sonic effect of these compromises will either enhance or deteriorate the playback experience of your source material and I favor the compromises that enhance my three main categories of sound attributes. Some members have astutely noted that these postulates are quite similar to the ones used in the link submitted by member jcx. Some reading have acknowledged that the common tools and testing parameters we rely upon have limitations and suggested more comprehensive tests with greater resolution. I have no objection to this but access to this equipment along with the knowledge and environment required to use it is beyond the great majority of diyers and many engineers. Even if these tests become commonly done correctly, which implies a lot, what do they really tell most people about what they will get in their audio output? This is where my method will succeed more than what is being used today. I know its fuzzy nature sends chills up the spine of many here but it will work if it is adopted on a significant scale.
I don't think an amplifier can be both blameless and have audible changes in sound...
Enviado de meu GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk
Enviado de meu GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk
The definition of 'blameless' as coined by Douglas Self means an amp where all distortion types have been dealt with and are minimized.
It does not mean a blameless amp in the sense that it is perfect.
So, yes, two blameless amps according to the original definition can have electrical differences.
Are they audible? I don't know but I suspect not.
Jan
Yes it was. But basically this thread started out on the wrong foot from post # 1. You called it 'general discussion' and the starting post was camouflaged as an invitation to discuss things as if you were interested in getting other opinions and/or learn. But, as I said, that was just camouflage; but don't feel bad because most threads start that way.'
What you really did was throw out some statements that were not up for any discussion - you constantly refuse to go into discussion, but rather ignore posts (assuming you even read them) and come up with new views and angles, ad nauseatum.
That will not lead to anything useful but we all need our relaxation time after work 😉
Jan
Someone I guarantee you never heard of, because they didn't exist a week ago 🙂 "The Pretty Nihilists". My 14-year old daughter was in a 5-day "camp" called Rebel Girl Halifax Rock Camp, all girls 13-17 learning to play instruments, writing original songs, designing posters and band logos, screen printing, all that fun stuff. Last night they had their showcase performance. My girl's band was the closing act and they killed, and have been invited to perform (and get paid!) in some more public settings (like on the upper deck of the Halifax-Dartmouth ferry during an evening city-wide arts festival called Nocturne in October). My daughter was the lead singer, lead guitar, and wrote most of their 3 original songs (they also did 2 covers). Me proud papa 😀
REBEL GIRL HALIFAX
Nocturne Halifax | Art at NightNocturne Halifax
If all amplifiers sound the same and any changes below 2% THD are un detectable why try to improve something that won't make a difference?
Even from an engineering point of view it makes no sense.
However are we saying that the amplifiers that meet test criteria were not made in the past? Because if they were why isn't everyone satisfied with what they have?
Either the test is fundamentally flawed ie not representative of real world conditions or all amplifiers after about 1955 were a waste of effort.
So you can't have it both ways either there is no difference in the real world or the test is only valid in lab conditions.
If its not the same in the real world and there is a difference with different loads volume levels type of speaker and possibly source and even music types then there is a difference no matter how you try to cover it up. The interaction of the amplifier to the things attached to it either make a difference or they don't.
One step further..if the impact of the loads on different amps makes the same difference ie same speaker different amp same change then there should be no difference in the real world.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
M Gregg
+1
jan.didden
I've tried to answer everything I've read, even what has been removed so it is not for lack of diligence on my part. If there is something specific that I missed, post it now and I will address it if I hadn't done so in a prior post. I've offered the option to anyone else to describe a reproduced sound signal better and so far no one has presented anything as useful and universal so I don't think your characterization of my intent is just.
+1
jan.didden
I've tried to answer everything I've read, even what has been removed so it is not for lack of diligence on my part. If there is something specific that I missed, post it now and I will address it if I hadn't done so in a prior post. I've offered the option to anyone else to describe a reproduced sound signal better and so far no one has presented anything as useful and universal so I don't think your characterization of my intent is just.
Last edited:
The point has to be,
Can you tell a difference in the real world with a group of different amplifiers using the same load and source?
Here is a comment that will raise a few questions..
Now if you can't tell the difference, I will admit what is the point of DIY amplifiers other than to make them sound different by adding distortion.
Now that's an interesting question...and it means that DIYers are building better amps to try and get a commercial sound which is flat..or more distorted depending on preference..
The idea being that all commercial amps (properly built and flat) all sound the same.. so at normal room volume a pioneer midfi amp is the same as a Krell???
And the only difference is the source and speaker type..
Now the point of this is either its complete rubbish or its true!
Regards
M. Gregg
Can you tell a difference in the real world with a group of different amplifiers using the same load and source?
Here is a comment that will raise a few questions..
Now if you can't tell the difference, I will admit what is the point of DIY amplifiers other than to make them sound different by adding distortion.
Now that's an interesting question...and it means that DIYers are building better amps to try and get a commercial sound which is flat..or more distorted depending on preference..
The idea being that all commercial amps (properly built and flat) all sound the same.. so at normal room volume a pioneer midfi amp is the same as a Krell???
And the only difference is the source and speaker type..
Now the point of this is either its complete rubbish or its true!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
What was it, then?
But there seems to be quite a few here disagreeing that changes can lead to differences in the subjective impression of the final sound.
You may not like the terms, or their origins, but for a lot of people they have meaning. Can they be confused? Yes. Can they imprecise? Yes. Can they be real? Yes
How is it extraordinary that real changes in amplification can lead to changes in the perception of the outcome? You may not like the terms those perceptions are wrapped in, but the perceptions are real.
Where have you seen this denial written? Can you provide cites?
Why would they say that if it's not what they want? Maybe they just want an amplifier that results in a subjectively closer impression of live music than some other amp. However that is achieved.
***
The split comes with those claiming that all this has been solved vs those who don't believe it has been solved and are searching, with their ears, for a more realistic end result.
The lost opportunity here is finding correlations between amplifier colorations and the real, measurable, designable parameters that cause those colorations.
And before you say "Oh, it's simple - just design an amp with no coloration" pause a moment and think about that. What makes you so sure there are none? How have you determined that?
I also object to that.
We have to look at amplifiers from many angles and under many conditions. I do believe that almost any and all subjective differences in amps can be measured.* Knowing how to test and where to look may be the hard part. What's important? What isn't?
*I've heard amps with differing senses of the acoustic space. I've no idea what would cause that or how to measure it.
(no, it wasn't microphonics)
You open a whole dum of worms here.
Why do diy-ers keep on building amps?
One reason: its fun to build better mousetraps, even if you don't catch any more mice. There's a challenge in getting just a few ppm lower in THD, or try out a new circuit idea. And of course, once you complete your super-duper amp, it sounds sooo much better than your previous one!
Is this not a worthy endeavour?
Of course once you start to talk about objective differences between amps, that a whole different story.
It is in the attempts to marry the two, that problems arise. Just as in a real marriage 😉
Jan
*I've heard amps with differing senses of the acoustic space. I've no idea what would cause that or how to measure it.
Pano, could a better description be: 'I've heard differing senses of the acoustic space while listening to different amps'.
Err I have a few builds..😕😱
Perhaps the coloration isn't quite right yet.😀..however I keep trying..
Perhaps I should add a large dial for varying the amount of niceness..
A transformation button that turns a sows ear into a silk purse.
Perhaps a TARDIS amp with an infinite number of components strategically placed to achieve nothing.. 😀
One thing it would get a reaction from the wife...the Prat factor would increase and I would be in the dog house.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
How much current does it take to move the cone of a 12" speaker..😕
How much current does it take to move a 4" speaker..
What difference is there in the speed of movement/acceleration against the air?
I'm only joking 😀
😱 The damping factor..
Regards
M. Gregg
How much current does it take to move a 4" speaker..
What difference is there in the speed of movement/acceleration against the air?
I'm only joking 😀
😱 The damping factor..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Welcome to the 'real world, yldouright. There are those of us who hear differences in amps and trust that we are not imagining things, and there are those who are convinced that virtually every 'good' amp sounds exactly the same, and that anyone saying any different is either fooling themselves or outright lying. (That is what I am accused of.) Yet, I still hear differences, and so do thousands of others, so keep your opinions!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.