Yes, you do. There is a TON of data out there showing exactly that- we know exactly what parameters for amplifiers are audible and what aren't. I've provided dozen of published references repeatedly. There is exactly zero, zip, nada, none, nichts data to the contrary. Foot-stomping, sneering, and anecdote doesn't cut it.
Make an assertion that everyone who has actually done the experiments and published the results is mistaken and you're right, that there's some mysterious, not-yet-measurable parameter that's audible yet has escaped the notice of box-of-gain designers for mission-critical applications, well, you gotta have data or you're just hoping that if you clap loudly enough, Tinkerbell will live. And specifically, that the Crown somehow sounds slammily different than, say, a Parasound or Bryston, or even (presumably, I haven't seen the measurements) one of the amps you sell.
Actually, SY, I'd be more than pleased to review any of the "tests" that you wish to provide to me. I've yet to see any where there are or were adequate controls, and at the same time the use of speakers and signal chain that were characterized by objective measurement (ie. more than adequate), and that were replicated by any others. Then too access to the signal source(s) would be useful (not sure I have seen that mentioned, although some may well have done so).
A certain "well-known" ABX advocate, some years back, provided me with a CDR of test material. Please accept my assurances that said test material would be of no use in terms of hearing any differences - could not have been chosen better in that regard! So, sure the ABX results were assured. Intentional? No idea. Convinced a lot of others who tried the CDR which was freely supplied at the time.
No, show me a truly valid test that can be generalized past the specific test and test conditions. I'm interested and happy to see and read it.
A certain "well-known" ABX advocate, some years back, provided me with a CDR of test material. Please accept my assurances that said test material would be of no use in terms of hearing any differences - could not have been chosen better in that regard! So, sure the ABX results were assured. Intentional? No idea. Convinced a lot of others who tried the CDR which was freely supplied at the time.
No, show me a truly valid test that can be generalized past the specific test and test conditions. I'm interested and happy to see and read it.
OK. Another way of saying it: I had solid State 600W Mosfet amps, class A SET 30W, PP EL34, Class A 250W, 200 W solid state class AB, 15W class AB amp with monstruous power supply etc. etc. Compared to the Crown SR1 they all sounded more or less the same in the bass, despite pretty significant differences between some of them. Idem at my friend's who made comparisons with various big valve amps and solid state amps.
The SR1 has a distinctive personality in the bass department, with a clearly more articulate, dynamic, life/live-like impact and "slam". It's no imagination effect, brain-masturbation etc.
It's just what we experienced. No one is required to take this for granted of course.
Just trying through this thread to find out what explanations there are/could be for this particular bass sound (if "slam" is too problematic for some people, let's not use this word but we have to put names on certain things if we want to communicate).
Btw, have you ever had the opportunity to "audition" one of these Crowns in your own system? Or is your Adcom/Bryston rig doing the trick for you these days?
Wait, ur not using one of them? What are you using for an amp these days?
Btw, ur present avatar is looking a bit toothy, snarly, and showing a lot of gums there...
Wait, ur not using one of them? What are you using for an amp these days?
Btw, ur present avatar is looking a bit toothy, snarly, and showing a lot of gums there...
so are you saying that most amplifiers sound the same but the crown is the outlier based on your tests?
Here is another pm I received from a guy called Mitch (with his permission):
"Referencing the Crown link I sent to you (note: http://www.crownaudio.com/media/pdf/...ing_factor.pdf )
I think says it all - would be good to post that.
If you look at the various Crown patents like: Patent US5015969 - Amplifier control system - Google Patents One can see they do a great job of all sorts of amp monitoring, protection, etc., but nothing like the Crown link on damping factor, where it basically states the reason is "High damping factor equals tight bass". How they are achieving the high DF is certainly open to question.
As mentioned before, I know of no other amp that measure that high of damping factor. Another anecdote, I was part of a studio/control room build with Chips Davis Chips Davis Designs - Acoustical Consultants & Studio Design where there was debate about this very point. We switched in and out a variety of amps in the control room driving a set of Urei Time Aligns (813C with the JBL drivers) in a blind listening test. Meaning the technicians were switching in/out the amps with us (5 people if I recall right) were sitting in the control room listening to Peter Gabriel's Security CD-ROM because of it's bass and drums slam with huge dynamic range. We had no visual clue to which amp we were listening to. While the top end's of the amps varied a little bit, it was the bottom end where it was no contest. Everyone within a sort period of time guessed every time the Crown.
Chips used a TEF acoustical analysis computer back then to measure the decay of the control room and it was quite a measurable difference in the bottom end decay, with the Crown easily having the least amount of decay, which confirmed what we were hearing. Unfortunately, that was many years ago and I don't have the data files. But that was the end for me guessing which amp has the best "slam" and again, I think Crown said it best in the paper: High damping factor equals tight bass. "How" they achieve that, whether through high negative feedback or... is likely to remain a mystery
Mitch drew my attention to the dead link to the Crown document on damping factor; this one works: http://www.crownaudio.com/media/pdf/amps/damping_factor.pdf
Yes. SR1 on Onken W, slightly moded including the fact that I use no Altec 416 but Ciare PW 388 (High Qms + very low Rms if someone asks). EDIT: what is called an Onken W is basically a bass reflex box with two 15inchers and a name on it. Nothing special.
The 3 way LS system is mono-amplified, passive filtered all through.
My friend uses a pair of (genuine) Everest DD55000, monoamped and original internal passive Xover.
Last edited:
Based on your comments, I assumed that you must be using one of the amps you cited? So please illuminate? Can we have some images too? So that we can all share too!
I have read quite a few of these papers. I assume you must have at least one on hand that will put to rest if not all then most of my basic concerns?
Thus far the papers I have read have given "statistically valid results" for test conditions that can not be replicated and/or are not properly or fully documented. Other various flaws and confounding factors... Furthermore the conclusions are subjective statements in the main.
So which study is dispositive?
Where are the peer reviewed publications you've done explaining your concerns?
Or can I put your comments in the bin?
In aggregate, all of them. Read the literature instead of expounding on what you THINK they say.
This may stun you, but I design and build my own equipment. Best to polish your crystal ball before attempting remote viewing again.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.