Asymmetrical crosstalk is a major problem regarding 'soundstage' Pure dual mono is the best fix.
Right here:yldouright said:
I suspect that most people would prefer to talk of sound being 'distorted' than of a 'poor soundstage'. They know from everyday life what 'distorted' means - it is a normal English word.
You can't construct a "meaningful and comprehensive description" using terms which are meaningless in the context in which their use is being proposed.
You don't get it, do you?
I don't think the OP came here for teaching. He seems to want us to endorse, and then perhaps extend, his ideas. Any attempt to replace them is batted away.Pano said:
But we already know some of them: frequency response (we are very sensitive to this), nonlinear distortion (we are less sensitive to this). These are what we should be refining and extending.
SY's set is not narrow, but forms a good basis. One could add 'interchannel crosstalk' - I guess he was assuming that any competent amplifier will get this right anyway. I might want to add LF intermodulation, from either mains frequency or signal envelope, to the set of characteristics. We know these things are audible if present in sufficient amounts, but they are not always tested for.yldouright said:
There is a theorem in computer science which says that all algorithms either terminate or go into a loop. Threads seem to do the same.cliffforrest said:
Or, in other words, not for performance but for touchy-feeley reasons. How's that for perverse?
Not at all perverse, it's an accurate assessment of the realities of human desire. Nelson uses the term "entertainment," and that is a profound view which has strongly influenced me. If people like it better if there's an exotic story, a colorful personality, a certain look, touch, and feel, then that's what you give to them if you're selling into that niche market. It's the entertainment, or the thing that allows the object to entertain the customer once acquired. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I made my living that way for many years (though in a different sensory field, haptics); our double-blind test data were critical in establishing design goals and engineering tolerances in order to give people the look and feel they wanted. If A and B weren't distinguishable in a DBT, their variances were fine for the application.
Just don't expect technically competent people to acknowledge a "truth" to the story-telling part of it.
You're right, I assumed too much. I think it's an assumption that's fairly universally true- I can't remember seeing an amp with poor (to the point of audibility) crosstalk in decades unless deliberately designed that way, i.e., an effects box.
Dual mono same chassis or dual mono seperate chassis .....
The sound stage will be different from amplifier to amplifier , So ...?
The xtalk problem is associated with layout and separate power supply buffering for each channel.
Nice to see you bring the crosstalk issue up John.
Crosstalk and crosstalk that varies with user controls is something I wondered over long ago. Its a problem (although difficult to say exactly how audible it is) that I have become ever more acutely aware of and its now something I test for on PCB layouts.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/156358-crosstalk-image.html
Crosstalk and crosstalk that varies with user controls is something I wondered over long ago. Its a problem (although difficult to say exactly how audible it is) that I have become ever more acutely aware of and its now something I test for on PCB layouts.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/156358-crosstalk-image.html
So you are insisting to stick to your 3 things to describe amps even though two of those have nothing to do with amps and the third is impossible to tell without the original instrument, player and room.
Good luck with that but I think your endeavours are doomed to failure.
No, it will not.
I´m amazed you say so.
Any proof of that besides your Faith?
Soundstage is defined by the Recording Engineer when, say, he pans the hi hat 75% to the right and the floor tom 15% to the left, centers the bass drum and so on, so as to "spread" the drums between left and right channels .... which sadly is *all* you have to work with.
Same with all other instruments, voice, etc. and I´m not even mentioning reverb.
If you state that passing said recording through different amplifiers (keeping everything else equal) changes soundstage, meaning that, say, the drums sound "more to the right" while the guitar sounds "more to the left" and so on .... because that´s literally what *sound* - *stage* means , well, I´m amazed about your lack of clue about the Audio process.
Or the English meaning of words. 🙄
Indeed. Rolex does NOT sell timepieces. Rolex sells an experience. There are many more examples in these times where what you buy is not the product but the experience and the image it represents.
It's even worse: if you get something without paying for it, you can safely assume that YOU are the product!
Jan
But surely time as measured by a fine time piece like a Rolex has a different quality than the digital time presented by a mere cell phone. With a Rolex you really feel in the moment, part of a continuous analog temporal stream. Time becomes more involving, as well as more resolving, and the faint ticking really enhances the pace, rhythm and timing of one's day.
Okay, so I guess I was the only one who noted the irony of using the very same kind of subjective criteria to choose their preferred amp while at the same time eschewing the notion of subjectively choosing their amp's audio output 
For many people soundstage means a lot more than that, a 3D presentation is the natural outcome of competent reproduction, because the depth cues picked up by the microphones become meaningful, are translated in the brain into an "illusion" of distance. If one hasn't been exposed to a system working well enough for these clues to be sufficiently clear then the tendency would be to assume that left/right is all one can get; yldouright's correlating of reproduction of soundstage information with the capability of the system is very meaningful when one is attempting to assess quality.
So, are you of the opinion that any of those things would change between say, a 500 watt Acurus amplifier and a 500 watt Krell amplifier?
It all depends - on the competence of the amplifier to deliver those 500W cleanly - I recently had the experience of a 1000W Bryston which showed how it should be done, and have also heard many Krells over the years, none of which have ever done anything for me. The latter failed because the low level detail was not cleanly reproduced - they could go loud, but so can a PA amp; what is needed is the ability to produce high SPL sound and fine detail at the same time - a tricky balancing act for many systems,
So, what about if we used high sensitivity speakers and were listening at comfortable levels?
Yes, in those circumstances they should match up fairly well. I believe that all amplifiers have the potential to sound identical, but usually don't because they are impacted by subtle implementation problems, weaknesses in the power supply area or they are too susceptible to various interference issues; or, the manner in which they operate generates interference, impacting other components in the reproduction chain.
Last edited:
Err,
I did not say who or what in the recording chain creates the soundstage, what i said was the soundstage as presented in the recording will be different from amplfier to amplifier and my knowledge on studios and the recording process involved goes beyond your bloviating ..
Seen ..?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.