DrDyna, SY
When you try to define transparent in terms of distortion, you will only be able to find what is acceptably transparent based on distortion numbers, not what is actually transparent in real life. Do the lowest distortion numbers as they are published today guarantee the most realistic audio playback? Hell, can we even be assured with any real confidence what the most realistic playback is with distortion numbers alone? You, and others that espouse your point of view, are completely missing the point of audio playback and are alienating people away from high end audio as a consequence. The offshoot of this is a validation of the mp3 format and a general decrease in the auditory expectation of the end user. You're killing the goose that lays the golden egg and robbing people of what they can be experiencing in their playback. My framework has the potential to save us from this fate.
When you try to define transparent in terms of distortion, you will only be able to find what is acceptably transparent based on distortion numbers, not what is actually transparent in real life. Do the lowest distortion numbers as they are published today guarantee the most realistic audio playback? Hell, can we even be assured with any real confidence what the most realistic playback is with distortion numbers alone? You, and others that espouse your point of view, are completely missing the point of audio playback and are alienating people away from high end audio as a consequence. The offshoot of this is a validation of the mp3 format and a general decrease in the auditory expectation of the end user. You're killing the goose that lays the golden egg and robbing people of what they can be experiencing in their playback. My framework has the potential to save us from this fate.
How much distortion is there at live music events, more than one would suspect, people breathing room acoustics etc etc even worse for amplified music...
Nobody is trying to characterise transparency in terms of distortion alone. Other things matter too, such as frequency response. Please address what is being said to you, not something different.
To establish realistic playback you need to compare reproduction with real instruments/voices - using ears alone. This was done in the 1950s and enabled the hi-fi industry to be born. The parameters established back then have not substantially changed, which is why genuine hi-fi from that era still provides good reproduction today. Most of the advance in technology since then has been in miniaturisation (including solid-state), transducers and digital recording.
A separate issue is to establish what people prefer. It was found then, and it would probably be found again today (although maybe with slightly different numbers), that some people prefer a more limited frequency range and the presence of a small amount of low order distortion.
It is people advocating nonsense (such as prat and soundstage, as amplifier qualities) who have put people off genuine hi-fi audio. 'Your' framework is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
To establish realistic playback you need to compare reproduction with real instruments/voices - using ears alone. This was done in the 1950s and enabled the hi-fi industry to be born. The parameters established back then have not substantially changed, which is why genuine hi-fi from that era still provides good reproduction today. Most of the advance in technology since then has been in miniaturisation (including solid-state), transducers and digital recording.
A separate issue is to establish what people prefer. It was found then, and it would probably be found again today (although maybe with slightly different numbers), that some people prefer a more limited frequency range and the presence of a small amount of low order distortion.
It is people advocating nonsense (such as prat and soundstage, as amplifier qualities) who have put people off genuine hi-fi audio. 'Your' framework is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If discussing a technical and measurable product such as an amplifier your *only* answer is to deviate the discussion into meal tasting, the beauty of a day or what you feel for a beloved one it clearly means that you have absolutely NO valid proof or argument about what you state.
Really I feel very sorry for you.
JMFahey
Sing along here and replace "Argentina" with "JMFahey"
marce
Sing along here and replace "Argentina" with "JMFahey"
marce
...and make up the disparity between the original and what you hear in your mind? Contrary to what you state, there is importance in accurately recreating an auditory experience and some tools do it better than others in spite of what the numbers say.
Last edited:
BigE
An amp is supposed to help reproduce music and my postulates describe music better than transparent . As for everything else
But your postulates do not describe amplifiers -- transparent does.
An amplifier's job is to make a small signal larger. Once that is done in a manner where output cannot be distinguished from input by ear alone (and that point was passed many decades ago), you need to move on to other parts of the chain. Recordings, speakers, rooms, those "tools" indeed vary and some "do it better than others." Ditto EQ and signal processing, if that's what you want.
There comes the monkey out of the sleeve, as we say in the low lands. It is about the preservation of high end and the goose that lays the golden egg.
I don´t mind, I am all for business. But, be frank about it, that is best for all. Let me go back to the analogy with luxury watches. Everybody buying one knows that their cellphone keeps better time. It is the same with sound. Young people know that there is not much difference in sound between most modern electronics. If you want to draw them into the market, you have to convince on other grounds.
Continuing this whole thing about PRaT or whatever unsubstantiated claims to describe technically correct sound is not helpful at all to keep the customers.
not my task
I can't see where you have presented anything in this thread other than make irrelevant speculative presumptions about what should be done, according to your rules, to characterise your perception of differences in amplifiers, and then proselytizing said beliefs as de rigueur for all to consume and obey.
This in spite of decades of research dating way back on perceptual and engineering aspects of sound reproduction, which you summarily and incorrectly dismiss as irrelevant. It is you that has the burden of proof of your hypothesis, since you presented it. Kind of like defending a dissertation or thesis to a peer group, or have you never been exposed to anything like that?
John L.
I can't see where you have presented anything in this thread other than make irrelevant speculative presumptions about what should be done, according to your rules, to characterise your perception of differences in amplifiers, and then proselytizing said beliefs as de rigueur for all to consume and obey.
This in spite of decades of research dating way back on perceptual and engineering aspects of sound reproduction, which you summarily and incorrectly dismiss as irrelevant. It is you that has the burden of proof of your hypothesis, since you presented it. Kind of like defending a dissertation or thesis to a peer group, or have you never been exposed to anything like that?
John L.
Where did I say inaccuracy, I like my music to sound as realistic as possible...but still a replay system is just a tool to play the music, the emotion comes from the music itself, not the replay system. Though others would have it otherwise...music replay is science not art.
marce, vacuphile
auplater
You can't make anyone see what they don't want to see. Once again you've repeated what others have already said. You have nothing to learn here, why continue to post and read here?
DF96
Variations from a flat frequency response can be viewed as another form of distortion, no?
auplater
You can't make anyone see what they don't want to see. Once again you've repeated what others have already said. You have nothing to learn here, why continue to post and read here?
DF96
Variations from a flat frequency response can be viewed as another form of distortion, no?
Last edited:
Not silly at all.
That's exactly what you've been stating all the time.
The Techies have been saying that the taste of the food lies on the food itself.
The Believers have been saying that the plate significantly modifies the taste.
Which with the "plates" (amplifiers) we have been discussing here does not happen.
Yet the Techies accept that *some* plates do modify taste 😱
Yes, plates carved out of a block of salt, made with compressed chili flakes, red hot plates which burn food put on them, etc. 😉
VERY DEFECTIVE plates (amplifiers)
But those plates can be analyzed, put through a chromatograph , temperature measured, whatever, and their effect can be measured .
While you state that regular, standard plates modify taste, that only you can detect that, that you can offer no other proof than your own statements.
That, dear yldoyouright, is plain old unbacked FAITH and nothing else.
Fine for you, if you feel comfortable with it, but a very poor tool to convince others.
Well, thanks for recognizing the importance of measurements.
Anyway, when comparing measurements, even with limitations, and simple unproven statements, which by definition are 100% "limitations", forgive me if I find the former the least flawed 🙂
No what he is saying to ignorant techies, is that the food will tastes different due to how and in what it is served...
Beer in can
Beer in glass
Beer in Keg
Same beer different Prat .....
Beer in can
Beer in glass
Beer in Keg
Same beer different Prat .....
No to what....
Are you saying a system is not a tool to reproduce audio signals with the minimum change from input to output of the signal, cos that is what it is.
Are you saying a system is not a tool to reproduce audio signals with the minimum change from input to output of the signal, cos that is what it is.
Last edited:
No,
I'm saying the goal should be a perfect transfer Function, not easily obtainable due to the many variables in sonic reproduction, in the end, its a careful artistic balance of the package to please the ears, art meeting science.
This is why there are so many church's, most here would understand that if they built anything for resale, many factors have to be addressed .......
I'm saying the goal should be a perfect transfer Function, not easily obtainable due to the many variables in sonic reproduction, in the end, its a careful artistic balance of the package to please the ears, art meeting science.
This is why there are so many church's, most here would understand that if they built anything for resale, many factors have to be addressed .......
That's what annoys me in this useless 700 post argument about non existing "properties" when so much remains to be done in other areas.
Specially SPEAKERS which as I stated before are HORRIBLE compared to the rest of the chain.
There yes, no 2 speakers sound the same, can be picked just by listening even behind a curtain, etc.
OK, let's sweep into the definition of 'distortion' anything which will mean that the output of an amplifier is not simply a bigger version of the input - that is what you intend?yldouright said:
In post 721 you said
So you are now saying that there are (amplifier) things which can spoil acceptable transparency, but which do not relate to signal distortion. So an amplifier which correctly amplifies (i.e. all its 'distortion' numbers are sufficiently low) can still spoil audio transparency?
We can tell whether an amplifier amplifies well by comparing the input with the output. We can do this either in the time domain or the frequency domain; both are useful even though either one contains all the information contained in the signal. So there are 'distortions' which can affect Prat and soundstage, yet do not appear in an in/out comparision?
I'm not sure which of three things you are claiming:
1. something other than the amplifier output affects the music reproduction
2. there are extra unknown distortions over and above non-linear distortion, frequency response etc. which when present even in small quantities can damage music reproduction
3. non-linear distortion, frequency response etc. do not need to be enhanced by extra unknown distortions but replaced by a completely new set of distortions, which map more directly onto Prat and soundstage etc., so conventional nonlinearity and frequency response etc. become unimportant.
@ FAHey
Amplifier on
1. Board
2. In alloy case
3. In steel case
4. In dual mono chassis
5. In separate mono bloc chassis
Will sound different , your same perfect amplifier, So whats your point ....
Amplifier on
1. Board
2. In alloy case
3. In steel case
4. In dual mono chassis
5. In separate mono bloc chassis
Will sound different , your same perfect amplifier, So whats your point ....
Okay, the noise level and redundant posting is on the rise so I won't be posting for a while after this. When we assess truth and proof, I agree it is imprudent to accept one person's opinion so let's create a pool of 1,000 (500 each) designers and audiophiles and ask them to listen for differences in the playback and score them in my three audio postulates. At some point, a consensus may begin to form and a pattern of truth will emerge. Let's say 850 of the 1,000 participants concur that one amp gives the best audio playback. Now we are closer to the truth than stating an amp with a flat 5-50,000Hz frequency response and 0.0001 THD must sound better than one measuring 10-40,000Hz and 0.003 THD.
DF96
There is nothing inconsistent in my posts so stop inferring that they exist. Please re-read my post on page 43 for your reply.
DF96
There is nothing inconsistent in my posts so stop inferring that they exist. Please re-read my post on page 43 for your reply.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.