I agree, bad sleazy marketing, but can't rule out real skillful design targeting bookshelf speaker users.
By the looks of the spectrum it probably sounds boxy and muddy. Looks like it could have been adjusted by ear using a set of speakers with big dip where the peaky lower midrange is.
Interesting... Now I have to clear some time to find out how my own power amps fare in a dynamic test like this. (They also measure extremely flat under the traditional tests.) Sadly, most of that time will be spent trying to find my differential test lead, which went missing some time ago. It's here, somewhere... 
Have you considered the possibility that our ears are not easily fooled and that is why making electro-mechanical contraptions play music convincingly is extremely difficult?
The evidence is that ears are easily fooled. For example, a small increase in loudness is perceived as a big increase in quality. Given that, why would I want to assume the opposite of what the evidence tells us?traderbam said:
Making electromechanical contraptions play music is difficult; by comparison the electronic contraptions which sit between the electromechanical contraptions are easy, which may be why some people need to convince us that they too are difficult because you get more fame and money from achieving something which others believe is difficult.
And for some isolation larfs IsoAcoustics Orea Audio Equipment Isolators | Stereophile.com. Apparantly makes a $3000 class D monoblock sound nearly as good as a $12000 Class D monoblock,
Why don't you explore how you might leverage that fact? If one thing sounds better than another, I sometimes like to turn down the loudness of the better one until the two things sound equally good. Now I have a probably-better-than-nothing metric to say how much more I like one sound than another. Also, there are smart phone apps that work pretty well for non-critical SPL measurements, which can be helpful. They can be useful to standardize listening level so that things can be compared fairly, and so that ear fatigue due to excessive loudness can be avoided.
I admire your tenacity DF96. I too studied solid state physics and have taken an active interest in psychology and how easily we are fooled.
Unfortunately arguing against many people is akin to arguing against religious True Believers. Without sharing a common philosophical scientific basis and a shared set of propositions, you cannot move forward in any constructive argument and all discussion will reduce to assertions that neither side accept.
There's no point in digging out your old textbooks on transport theory in crystals and lattice vibrations. If these people were really curious as to the common physical nature of reality and curious about how easily their own mind could fool them, rather than seeing the world merely through their own experiences (and applying reasoning ex-post facto), then you wouldn't be having this discussion with them in the first place!
And with that I'll leave you to fight the good fight
No, no buttons at all in any case this is time varying with level. Mark is correct after a while "wooly" is how it sounded.
You are sort of saying the customer is wrong. So who exactly are you designing a circuit to please? Your oscilloscope?
I disagree with this approach.
Now you are saying that designing pre-amps and power amps that can convincingly play music is easy.
I think I see where you are coming from. I'm firmly in John Curl's camp on this one.
You would probably prefer the views of Daniel Kahneman to those of Gary Klein. But, they don't actually disagree about the nature of System 1 processes, it's that Kahnman finds the mistakes System 1 produces to be humorous, and Klein finds them disturbing. Thus Kahneman studied System 1 errors, and Klein studied it's incredible abilities.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.