Because of interactions with the measuring environment, such as reflections, when measuring speakers. Another is that a loudspeaker radiates in 3D.
Yes, they are very easy to separate.
If a speaker's properties influence the basic measurements of an amplifier ( FR, THD, Noise, slew rate etc.) there is something WRONG about the amplifier. Measurements that are currently acceptable involve speaking about an IDEAL amplifier, not a psychoacoustic property.
I have visions of you sitting around with like minded people talking about the texture of the sound or the qualities of the soundstage after swapping out a speaker cable. While this may be entertaining, it is so far from science, that it is irrelevant. Even as anecdotal information, it is useless, as once you know about the components, the psycho-acoustics become more about the psycho and less about the acoustics.
There is NO cause and effect relationship that can be discerned.
Don't get me wrong, I've gone down this road before. It is the road to madness.
The answer is quite straightforward - it's how, in what manner the system, rather than just the amplifier, distorts the low level detail which accompanies the more obvious high level information of the signal, which are the main strands of the music - for those who are into audiophile terminology, 😀, the micro-detail accompanying the macro-detail.*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)
The naive belief of many is that "glorious" masking solves that "problem", but it doesn't - it's quite easy to test this yourself, by listening to intense, live acoustic music making; human hearing can separate the strands of sound occurring in the space relatively easily, compartmentalising them.
An example: you're standing right next to a grand piano being given a good workout, very impressive sound - yet, if you choose to do so you can focus your attention on the clicking of the pianist's fingernails on the keys, or, the mechanical sounds of the sutain pedal going up and down - it's almost as if you make the intense musical notes "go away" - they can try to "mask" as much as they like, with zero effect. Yes, the cocktail party effect - and it works when you're listening to musical reproduction. Those systems which get that low level detail across more correctly, less distorted, are the ones which will stand out as being better - and that behaviour is obviously much harder to test for, hence largely ignored .
Since I read and hear a lot about low level detail, I've tried to find a way to measure it. I have never been able to do so. But even if I did, how would I interpret the results?
I buy amplifiers that have the specifications or features I want, or (because I'm a little anal about gear) sometimes just because I have other gear from a particular company, or just flat out because I like the way it looks....the acurus and aragon stuff...an honest answer? It was American made, the build quality was top notch, they had better parts than an F-18 and I liked the way the innards looked.
And no, I don't ever reach for the off button out of irritation. A.D.D maybe, but not irritation.
Edit: Which do I prefer? Well, when I'm watching movies and hanging out in the media room, I prefer the Marantz on my mains, because it's got a handy-dandy DTS-HD decoder in it. Plus, Audyssey MultiQ can do more to enhance sonics than anything that could occur in amplifier land. I prefer the EP2000 on my subs (until my NU4-6000 gets here) on my subs because it's the most powerful. I prefer the old Yamaha in the garage because it doesn't have HDMI...I prefer the Onkyo in the bedroom because it also has a fancyshmancy DTS-HD decoder on it, but a lesser Audyssey....I mean, I can go on and on, but the general point I'm trying to make is...I really only have two discrete amplifiers left, and even that's bridged and running a sub....and once they come out with an A/V receiver with a 5000 watt subwoofer amplifier built in, I'll own a total of 0 separate amplifiers.
Last edited:
BigE
You seem to be looking for points of contention instead of trying to see how I make sense. When I change the speakers or the amp using the same dB level on playback, the sound can change significantly and this is a strong indication of their interrelationship to me. About your visions; I might be the one smiling politely at those gatherings to maintain a friendship but I'll rarely be the one making the claim unless I really do hear it.
Last edited:
Come to think of it, where are the posts where you've 'repeatedly demanded' ? Do fess up old chap and come clean on this for the benefit of us all.
A simple technique that I would use, were I to seriously try and investigate this from a measurements point of view - that I have mentioned on several occasions - would be to feed the amplifier with 2 low level signals such that IMD misbehaviour is the focus. Then, without altering those signals introduce a much higher level signal, at various amplitudes, say up to close to clipping and observe how the IMD behaviour which is due only to the low level signals alters. Obviously frequencies have to be carefully chosen to separate modulation due to the presence of the single high amplitude frequency - the intent here is clear, to vary the level of electrical "stress" the amplifier is subject to, while still reproducing low level signals cleanly.
My suspicion is that subjectively "better" amplifiers will do much better in maintaining the low level IMD constant in nature in this exercise ...
Last edited:
+1
Double blind tests are used in every area of science and the only objections I've ever read to it were from psychics who were debunked by it and audiophiles. Not that any of them ever made an objection that made any sense.
Enviado de meu GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk
I really wish that DB tests worked better for audio and Coca Cola difference testing, but they don't, so we have to face the facts.
worked gangbusters for lossy codec development
at high bit rates few can tell, requires killer samples, training, good listening environment (broad band upward masking wipes out even proven good testers ability to discriminate)
even the few that can demonstate positive results at high bites, modern codecs/tunings often say they can no longer choose original vs copy, just subtly different, sometimes
at high bit rates few can tell, requires killer samples, training, good listening environment (broad band upward masking wipes out even proven good testers ability to discriminate)
even the few that can demonstate positive results at high bites, modern codecs/tunings often say they can no longer choose original vs copy, just subtly different, sometimes
Problem is, lossy codecs create artifacts which are totally different in nature from that of less than optimum playback - I can be happy with source derived from even relatively poor MP3 source; but "perfect" source played on a system with issues can be quite unpleasant to listen to on an ongoing basis ...
OK, you're talking about acoustic measurements. I was questioning the claim that electrical measurements are more easily performed on an amplifier. Why is it harder to stick your voltmeter or scope leads on a speaker's terminals than an amplifier's innards?
The interwebs tell me "kvell" means something like "to express great pleasure combined with pride", or to feel pleasure at someone else's success (antonym of schadenfreude), in which case yes, I am kvelling like crazy. 🙂
Of interest, because this combination of components has just been mentioned on another thread, is this comment from http://www.stereophile.com/content/naim%E2%80%99s-statement-amplifier:
A mark of competent systems, and extremely rarely experienced - perhaps a more appropriate quality to be looked for ... ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.