Yes. That's a better way to put it. My statement made it sound like the same amp varies. Not what I meant. Thanks Jan.
And then other other hand, there's Nelson Pass. Truly open minded and willing to experiment.
True
I come from a similar background - the French Audiophile school - where perceived differences were tested, investigated and explained. If a certain design was known to sound harsh, or smooth, or bass heavy, or thin or whatever, the design was investigated, measured and the results published.
A lot of that comes from Japan, too.
I come from a similar background - the French Audiophile school - where perceived differences were tested, investigated and explained. If a certain design was known to sound harsh, or smooth, or bass heavy, or thin or whatever, the design was investigated, measured and the results published.
A lot of that comes from Japan, too.
You miss my point.Pano said:
If I assert something which most sensible people with knowledge of the appropriate field of human study would regard as untrue then I can't declare that the lack of contrary proof from others is evidence that I am right. Some ideas are just too daft to refute. The ideas which get refuted are those which could, perhaps, be true but in fact are not true; ideas which some knowledgeable people may hold despite being untrue.
The OP is asserting something and repeatedly demanding that we either agree or offer alternatives which he would find acceptable. Alternatives with experimental and theoretical support, such as frequency response and distortion, are just brushed away with the usual 'audiophile' scorn.
A few pages ago SY asked if the OP had ever designed an amplifier. Did I miss the reply? It is a valid question, as the OP has asked someone else how many amplifiers he owns - perhaps a less valid question?
Are there? Who?
Last edited:
Yes. That's a better way to put it. My statement made it sound like the same amp varies. Not what I meant. Thanks Jan.
No prob.
So now the only remaining task is to establish a causal link 😎
Jan
You know this is untrue. Why do you say such things? Do you think it enhances your credibility rather than showing us you 'just say things'?
Jan
DF96
Oh come now, where have I exhibited 'the usual audiophile scorn'? Here is the reality; distortion and frequency response are inadequate to describe what an end user will hear. This is in part due to the caveats of the test measurement itself and the associated verbal disconnect of the terms with what we are accustomed to identify in a sound reproduction in normal (ie: non engineering) speech. The three sound characterizations proposed in this thread as audio postulates, do adequately give us that meaningful and comprehensive description. I am not so arrogant as to presume they are the only ones that can provide a framework for discourse but they are very good for this purpose.
Charles Darwin and JMFahey have proposed alternates which I addressed. If the other members reading thought those were better descriptions they certainly didn't openly endorse them. I don't mind critique when something better is proposed but it is shameful to see so much nay saying without due consideration of what has been put forward. Any questions that I have not answered in this thread, I have deemed irrelevant or of a trolling nature. Perhaps I should do as others here, put forward a faulty schematic and blame the software? I'm sure the readers here will be very understanding and considerate to me if that were to happen given the nature of the replies so far 🙂
Oh come now, where have I exhibited 'the usual audiophile scorn'? Here is the reality; distortion and frequency response are inadequate to describe what an end user will hear. This is in part due to the caveats of the test measurement itself and the associated verbal disconnect of the terms with what we are accustomed to identify in a sound reproduction in normal (ie: non engineering) speech. The three sound characterizations proposed in this thread as audio postulates, do adequately give us that meaningful and comprehensive description. I am not so arrogant as to presume they are the only ones that can provide a framework for discourse but they are very good for this purpose.
Charles Darwin and JMFahey have proposed alternates which I addressed. If the other members reading thought those were better descriptions they certainly didn't openly endorse them. I don't mind critique when something better is proposed but it is shameful to see so much nay saying without due consideration of what has been put forward. Any questions that I have not answered in this thread, I have deemed irrelevant or of a trolling nature. Perhaps I should do as others here, put forward a faulty schematic and blame the software? I'm sure the readers here will be very understanding and considerate to me if that were to happen given the nature of the replies so far 🙂
Another 5 plus pages since requesting *any* proof that the OP's definitions correlate to amp building and are not pure fantasy.....
fas42 said it best....Rather than attempt to colour the sound, remove the distortion and noise to the point that sufficient information is revealed in bad recordings that they too become listenable. This has also been my experience.
There is no point in postulating that an amplifier should be other than a straight wire with gain. Such added features are the realm of sound processing, not amplification.
Methinks that building a correlation between the OP's sonic attributes and electronics is an exercise in determining just how flawed the product is. Take soundstage for example. What if a component brought with it a cavernous sound-stage. So that every piece you hear has a HUGE soundstage. Would this be considered *excellent* for the soundstage parameter? NO. It would be a colouration that obscures the soundstage captured by the original recording.
Consequently, the reproduction chain should attempt to reproduce the recordings with MINIMAL distortion. Ideally, wire with gain.
fas42 said it best....Rather than attempt to colour the sound, remove the distortion and noise to the point that sufficient information is revealed in bad recordings that they too become listenable. This has also been my experience.
There is no point in postulating that an amplifier should be other than a straight wire with gain. Such added features are the realm of sound processing, not amplification.
Methinks that building a correlation between the OP's sonic attributes and electronics is an exercise in determining just how flawed the product is. Take soundstage for example. What if a component brought with it a cavernous sound-stage. So that every piece you hear has a HUGE soundstage. Would this be considered *excellent* for the soundstage parameter? NO. It would be a colouration that obscures the soundstage captured by the original recording.
Consequently, the reproduction chain should attempt to reproduce the recordings with MINIMAL distortion. Ideally, wire with gain.
I say it because all I see no engineers in this thread posting about it. So far, it is true in this thread. If it's not, why not speak up about the psycho-acoustic effects that differing amplifier characteristics can have?
Too busy bashing perception?
- Do the engineers think that only FR and THD make any difference?
- Do they believe that amplifier output impedance or stability have no effect on what comes out of the speaker?
- Do they believe that differences in harmonic spectrum are inaudible?
- Do they think that an amplifier's parameters will not make audible changes into complex loads?
- Or plotted over frequency and output level?
If no, why not discuss these?
If yes, then show evidence of why.
BigE
Member M Gregg addressed the issue of coloration for attributes as a design decision most eloquently on page 44 and I addressed it on page 43.
Member M Gregg addressed the issue of coloration for attributes as a design decision most eloquently on page 44 and I addressed it on page 43.
Not at all. I've heard the same argumentbefore. I'm not missing it, it simply does not apply.
If you read back into the thread, you will see that the scorn came quickly from those opposed to the original topic. Like so many threads on audio forums, the immediate reaction is "Holier than Tho". Not help, not teaching.
My plea is for a technical discussion of what real, measurable amplifier parameters can lead to subjective differences. A sort of cross index, if you will.
Nothing that M Gregg posts suggests that the amplifier should operate any differently than being a straight wire with gain.
Each time there has been a reduction in noise in the amplification in my system, your sonic attributes have "improved". Each time there is a reduction in noise, the amplification becomes closer to being a straight wire with gain (by definition).
Consequently, each time the amplification becomes closer to a straight wire with gain, your sonic attributes improve.
The attributes you propose are nothing more than the consequence of using amplification that is a "straight wire with gain".
Therefore, the goal of the designer is to produce an amplifier that is closer to being a 'straight wire with gain'.
Your post on 43 states clearly that you would prefer an amp that applies a large soundstage to every recording. At least that is how I read "excels".
You'd be best served by a sound processor. Such a device would allow you to compensate for "errors" in amplification. Errors like operating as 'straight wire with gain'.
BigE
How did you miss that? 🙂
No, he suggests that designing for coloration would be an interesting discussion (that might be worthy of its own thread).
How did you miss that? 🙂
I personally don't know how to design for 'coloration' in making a power amp. They just all have some 'coloration' no matter what I do to prevent it.
Yes, it's sad that such a tradition here seems to be dying, having grown up during the sixties when there was a true spirit
of inquisitiveness and experimentation. There are just a handful of people in the US still "keeping the faith" and resisting closed minds.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Pano
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.
I think that what Pano meant above was that amplifiers are audibly different, instead of "not perfect".
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.
I think that what Pano meant above was that amplifiers are audibly different, instead of "not perfect".
No, but it has been stated with the caveat that FR is reasonably level, and THD reasonably low (ie any halfway competent designed amp) the changes of hearing a difference approaches 1/infinity.
No engineer I know thinks this. Who said this?
With the caveat that they a) are low and b) decrease with increasing order, again 1/infinity. There will always be 'bad' amps that color the sound or take forever to come out of clipping, for instance, but again, a competent design is pretty much transparent.
Some parameters like output impedance and protection circuitry can. Whether it actually happens, depends.
If the designer is content with testing his amp in a 8 ohms resistive load and finding everything OK, then uses it to drive a pair of Maggies, hey, anything goes.
Not sure what the suggestion is here, but yes, aberrations can be frequency and level dependent.
Jan
Still untrue. Nobody is so stupid to categorically state 'all amplifiers sound the same'. It's brought up again and again and is downright fabricating things.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.