Since 1969 i am constructing, listening, evaluating, comparing amplifiers.
And that behavior... the interest of audio started even earlier, around 1960 when i started to construct everything people published ....and the most strange thing, is that the most sophisticated ones, usually sounds worst.....with exceptions of course.... this is the conclusion of many years testing...not empty words...experienced words.
More than 4000 amplifiers were constructed, compared and then dismounted to use the parts to another one....even the parts were the same...i had not too much problems with parts...as they were sounding in many amplifiers...so...sonics came from the design only, not because parts....components were out from the game.... and this is a good argument to the ones that believe transistor sounds different...i do not think this way...only capacitors sounds different, and circuits, and topologies.
That Blameless was the biggest scandall in my life....i turn very nervous... the one received shots....maybe a perfect amplifier..i do not discuss this...it may be very good if people instead of listening go watching waveforms into scopes...those visionphiles may be happy.
I think many people had not the chance to listen to Hugh Dean amplifiers... the ones that have listened loved his amplifiers.
Thank you Hugh, that you came here loosing your time trying to say things we both know very well...but hard to prove using numbers.... people need to listen to believe.
I am sorry, also, that i have called you here writing something about you....as this calls, usually, result not so good reactions...people use to attack you because envy, others wants to know ....and because of that they put you against the wall...pushing you hard.... trying to receive key informs to answer their own doubts...well...some questions and discussions are fair but extremelly hard to you....i always perceive those things, in our forum, alike Jesus Christ judgement..when people had already decided to kill him...because he deer to say he come from the skies...i feel myself very bad watching those things...and this is a constant.
Some guys, alike my young daugther, behave very strange....my daugther, for instance, even never have tasted banana with sugar and cynamon always reacted not to touch... not to eat... those things were awfull to her....not pretty...i do not know... she was "hating without taste"...and the same way...there are people that "hate simple designs without listen to them".....not very scientific minds...not a good scientific behavior in my point of view.
You really do not need to convince people about your amplifiers quality...you have more sales than you need...thousands of customers that do not think twice to have your last models...and they are in Audio Circle confirming your words..showing proudly their constructions...and they are people that can buy the most expensive gear...and they still prefere your unit....because it is extremely good.
It is hard for audiophiles, to accept quality without numbers...and they usually believe small distortion numbers means sound quality....this is wrong.... real life is full of reverberations, distortions and strange sounds...a violine playing near you is awfull...sounds alike a cracked bamboo...we need some distance not to capture those lower level spikes of sound.
High fidelity...low distortion will give you that original sound...i do not think people will really prefer that only to force numbers to make sense.
We are analogical beeings.... bio chemical machines...our audio transference is awfull...inside ear you have bonds moving and heating a diafragm....for sure..we are not having perfect square waves entering our brain.... bio chemical reactions are slow...you cannot perceive too big slew rate.... you "system" will not hold that....we need sounds that can be detected by humans.
We do not listen 100 Kilohertz..and there are amplifiers trying to reproduce 100 kilohertz....speakers do not reproduce 100 kilohertz too...so...there are a lot of non sense things and people accept without discuss...but they have problems to accept experienced people words...old folks informations....this is a pitty.
I have invited you here dear Hugh...but i will ask you to leave us...i think you do not deserve to face things you are facing....not fair to you.
Yes, there are educated people here,...there are folks making questions and discussing in a very high level or respect and good educations...some fair questions and some clever arguments...but we both know the bricks will come...and one already arrived with extremelly ignorance of behavior.
Sorry...i have started that...making comments about you.
regards,
Carlos
And that behavior... the interest of audio started even earlier, around 1960 when i started to construct everything people published ....and the most strange thing, is that the most sophisticated ones, usually sounds worst.....with exceptions of course.... this is the conclusion of many years testing...not empty words...experienced words.
More than 4000 amplifiers were constructed, compared and then dismounted to use the parts to another one....even the parts were the same...i had not too much problems with parts...as they were sounding in many amplifiers...so...sonics came from the design only, not because parts....components were out from the game.... and this is a good argument to the ones that believe transistor sounds different...i do not think this way...only capacitors sounds different, and circuits, and topologies.
That Blameless was the biggest scandall in my life....i turn very nervous... the one received shots....maybe a perfect amplifier..i do not discuss this...it may be very good if people instead of listening go watching waveforms into scopes...those visionphiles may be happy.
I think many people had not the chance to listen to Hugh Dean amplifiers... the ones that have listened loved his amplifiers.
Thank you Hugh, that you came here loosing your time trying to say things we both know very well...but hard to prove using numbers.... people need to listen to believe.
I am sorry, also, that i have called you here writing something about you....as this calls, usually, result not so good reactions...people use to attack you because envy, others wants to know ....and because of that they put you against the wall...pushing you hard.... trying to receive key informs to answer their own doubts...well...some questions and discussions are fair but extremelly hard to you....i always perceive those things, in our forum, alike Jesus Christ judgement..when people had already decided to kill him...because he deer to say he come from the skies...i feel myself very bad watching those things...and this is a constant.
Some guys, alike my young daugther, behave very strange....my daugther, for instance, even never have tasted banana with sugar and cynamon always reacted not to touch... not to eat... those things were awfull to her....not pretty...i do not know... she was "hating without taste"...and the same way...there are people that "hate simple designs without listen to them".....not very scientific minds...not a good scientific behavior in my point of view.
You really do not need to convince people about your amplifiers quality...you have more sales than you need...thousands of customers that do not think twice to have your last models...and they are in Audio Circle confirming your words..showing proudly their constructions...and they are people that can buy the most expensive gear...and they still prefere your unit....because it is extremely good.
It is hard for audiophiles, to accept quality without numbers...and they usually believe small distortion numbers means sound quality....this is wrong.... real life is full of reverberations, distortions and strange sounds...a violine playing near you is awfull...sounds alike a cracked bamboo...we need some distance not to capture those lower level spikes of sound.
High fidelity...low distortion will give you that original sound...i do not think people will really prefer that only to force numbers to make sense.
We are analogical beeings.... bio chemical machines...our audio transference is awfull...inside ear you have bonds moving and heating a diafragm....for sure..we are not having perfect square waves entering our brain.... bio chemical reactions are slow...you cannot perceive too big slew rate.... you "system" will not hold that....we need sounds that can be detected by humans.
We do not listen 100 Kilohertz..and there are amplifiers trying to reproduce 100 kilohertz....speakers do not reproduce 100 kilohertz too...so...there are a lot of non sense things and people accept without discuss...but they have problems to accept experienced people words...old folks informations....this is a pitty.
I have invited you here dear Hugh...but i will ask you to leave us...i think you do not deserve to face things you are facing....not fair to you.
Yes, there are educated people here,...there are folks making questions and discussing in a very high level or respect and good educations...some fair questions and some clever arguments...but we both know the bricks will come...and one already arrived with extremelly ignorance of behavior.
Sorry...i have started that...making comments about you.
regards,
Carlos
I apologize to Hugh, this is not the thread I had hoped it might turn into, I do not support the attacks againgst Mr Dean that seem to be quite baseless and coming from those who dont own his amplifiers. If ou read between the lines and even "the lines" you will notice that he points very strongly towards the VAS stage and its lack of investigation by the general crowd. I share his belief in the fact that it is a major sonic sticking point in audio reproduction as i have heard it with my own ears. The reason why the Blameless sounds so lousy has alot to do with the second stage "as is". as the output is a conventional emitter follower, similar of which the aksa used, and the LTP is pretty common, emitter degeneration, current mirror and active current source. Just dont be cheap and spend an extra few cents to separate the ltp and vas current sources. I am thinking I might have to build a couple of extra furnished boards and send them to Carlos to ake up for his bad experiences with the original 🙂.
Colin
Colin
And i will construct them and will listen at it...i do not block the chance
to learn more...there's not closed doors in my life....i am always open to change my mind...i love to do that...as i perceive mind changes as evolution.
You will be kind sending me one board.....keept it hidden inside card paper and send it as a letter...just one board...i will try it..for sure.
I have any doubts that your intention was not that one...i was the fool, as i know how people react against Hugh....many guys do that trying to shake Hugh till unstabilize him to make him talk too much....and it is intersting, since 2004, slowly, he passed all important informs about his amplifier....but people did not perceived that...hehe
VAS is the most important circuit to sonics...people thinks that differential is...negative!
My personal adress is:
Carlos Eugênio Mergulhão
Rua Dona Balbina Menelau 56 -1601
Candeias - Jaboatão dos Guararapes
Pernambuco - Brasil
South America
54440-331
regards all folks.
Carlos
to learn more...there's not closed doors in my life....i am always open to change my mind...i love to do that...as i perceive mind changes as evolution.
You will be kind sending me one board.....keept it hidden inside card paper and send it as a letter...just one board...i will try it..for sure.
I have any doubts that your intention was not that one...i was the fool, as i know how people react against Hugh....many guys do that trying to shake Hugh till unstabilize him to make him talk too much....and it is intersting, since 2004, slowly, he passed all important informs about his amplifier....but people did not perceived that...hehe
VAS is the most important circuit to sonics...people thinks that differential is...negative!
My personal adress is:
Carlos Eugênio Mergulhão
Rua Dona Balbina Menelau 56 -1601
Candeias - Jaboatão dos Guararapes
Pernambuco - Brasil
South America
54440-331
regards all folks.
Carlos
Attachments
Its a deal then Carlos, the board will post as of next week. I am hoping that you might do something I have no access to and provide some measurements out of curiosity if possible on performance, I am curious to see how it may of may not relate to perceived sonics.
Thanks
Colin
Thanks
Colin
By whom? I'm as non-voodoo and measurement-oriented as anyone, and I would find that "spec" laughably inadequate. Don't conflate "specs on an ad sheet as outlined by the FTC" with "proper and reasonably complete measurements."
Carlos, Colin,
When you have an uneducated novice in any area of knowledge claiming the sorts of things I claim then there will always be cries of 'impostor' from those who make their living from conventional pursuits. I accept that, it amuses me because it only redoubles my determination to walk away from the crowd.
I stress that nothing I have done is particularly original. It's all there for those who are prepared to do the hard yards, and keep an open mind. Insight is 99% repetitious hard work; we all have the brains to do just about anything we choose.
History is littered with 'shooting the messenger' stories. A farmer who shears his sheep off season; a fisherman who trawls in a known barren area; a painter who insists on cubism; a computer scientist who gives his life to open source software; a conservationist who chains himself to a dozer - these people are all treated as fools, but this is just human behaviour.
At my age I no longer care what others think. It's actually a huge relief - by their abuse and rhetoric you can spot the followers. Yes, to a minor degree I am self-congratulatory, but I seek out and carefully listen to those who offer a contrary view, as the result of listening to the conventional view is always, by definition, more of same....... No progress is possible without a 'what if' mentality, and that only comes from those with a contrary view.
And I love a little conflict. Glen, how about that lunch? I can recommend the salmon foccacia!
Cheers,
Hugh
When you have an uneducated novice in any area of knowledge claiming the sorts of things I claim then there will always be cries of 'impostor' from those who make their living from conventional pursuits. I accept that, it amuses me because it only redoubles my determination to walk away from the crowd.
I stress that nothing I have done is particularly original. It's all there for those who are prepared to do the hard yards, and keep an open mind. Insight is 99% repetitious hard work; we all have the brains to do just about anything we choose.
History is littered with 'shooting the messenger' stories. A farmer who shears his sheep off season; a fisherman who trawls in a known barren area; a painter who insists on cubism; a computer scientist who gives his life to open source software; a conservationist who chains himself to a dozer - these people are all treated as fools, but this is just human behaviour.
At my age I no longer care what others think. It's actually a huge relief - by their abuse and rhetoric you can spot the followers. Yes, to a minor degree I am self-congratulatory, but I seek out and carefully listen to those who offer a contrary view, as the result of listening to the conventional view is always, by definition, more of same....... No progress is possible without a 'what if' mentality, and that only comes from those with a contrary view.
And I love a little conflict. Glen, how about that lunch? I can recommend the salmon foccacia!
Cheers,
Hugh
Stuart,
I particularly enjoyed the quote from the source of modern Islamic fundamentalism - who was very badly treated in his native Egypt by Nasser.
How about 30Hz - 18KHz and 4% THD into 8R at full power? Is this a good spec?
Please explain this to me, I'm confused......😕
Cheers,
Hugh
I particularly enjoyed the quote from the source of modern Islamic fundamentalism - who was very badly treated in his native Egypt by Nasser.
How about 30Hz - 18KHz and 4% THD into 8R at full power? Is this a good spec?
Please explain this to me, I'm confused......😕
Cheers,
Hugh
Nobody is perfect dear Yanniger...i love you even beeing a
Scope lover..hehe
About your avatar, ..this nose is really big...has some connection with the old tale...Pinocchio?
ahahahha
Carlos
Scope lover..hehe
About your avatar, ..this nose is really big...has some connection with the old tale...Pinocchio?
ahahahha
Carlos
The most expensive picture in the world is hand painted and not even close to the object being painted. It doesn't have the super detail or superb technical spec of modern photography, but why people willing to pay so much for something that is blurry, distorted, and certainly not having as good specs as modern photograph standards?
Maybe? 😀 The point is, there is something those people enjoy much more than accuracy or distortionless. Sometimes a very accurate and distortionless picture makes the brain exhausted by thinking harder (looking for the mistakes) and the eyes are focussing to the details, not seeing the whole picture. Loosing the entertainment aspect.
AKSA said:
This is utterly ridiculous. If you think that such things as an amplifiers THD, IMD and TIM performance has little relationship to an amplifiers sonic performance, then you obviously don’t know what you are talking about.
Also, I never said that consumer’s listen to test tones or that subjective evaluation has no place. If you think that such is necessarily implied by drawing attention to the above mentioned, measurable distortion mechanisms, then you’re full of baloney.
So what? I didn’t make a single comment on the performance of your products, I criticised the completely unsubstantiated pseudoscientific hokum you use to market them, which you also use to deride other peoples products, with basless utterances such as this:
That latter is contemptible. The one sitting in the ivory tower here isn’t me, but it is you with your golden pair of ears with an amazing ability to build audio products that even engineers responsible for the “finest engineering examples of good amplifiers” cannot match.
And what of substance do you have to offer to substantiate such a grandiose claim? Nada! Just a paragraph of twaddle about how you are personally driven to develop amplifiers that cause you to cry.
Give me a break!
I have absolutely no intention of driving over 1000 kilometres for a free lunch, and what on earth does my “story” have to do with your unsubstantiated, pseudo-scientific musings on the performance of other peoples amplifier designs?
BTW, contrary to your claims designed to make you position look less untenable, nobody here is howling derision, but instead putting in plain words why what you have posted is baloney.
I have a tendancy to be a little less subtle than most, but that's just me.
AKSA said:
Sorry, but I don't like salmon and I steer clear of most foccacia breads because most contain obscene amounts of sodium.
PS
I see that since you have now steered this thread to a discussion on salmon, focaccia bread, cubism, farmers and people who chain themselves to bulldozers 🙄 you really don't have any technical arguments of substance to support your claims about the sonic inadequacy of “the finest engineering examples of good amplifiers”.
That figures.
Cheers,
Glen
Hi Glen,
What is your motive? You reaction seems way out of proportion.
You seem very angry for a man that likes large breasts. 😀 I find it very hard to read your posts, my eyes keep getting distracted. 😱
Have you found the audio forum: http://www.diyhifi.org/
regards
What is your motive? You reaction seems way out of proportion.
You seem very angry for a man that likes large breasts. 😀 I find it very hard to read your posts, my eyes keep getting distracted. 😱
Have you found the audio forum: http://www.diyhifi.org/
regards
Glen,
You have made my day!!
A man with your obvious cachet doubtless travels; I had expected you'd occasionally come to Melbourne, the invitation, Sir, stands.
Then you can be really rude to me! You are adept behind a keyboard, what are you like in person?
Again, I ask the question, why are you so threatened? Did I really insult you with my baseless opinions? Are you such a conventionalist, or do you have an MEng?
Cheers,
Hugh
You have made my day!!
A man with your obvious cachet doubtless travels; I had expected you'd occasionally come to Melbourne, the invitation, Sir, stands.
Then you can be really rude to me! You are adept behind a keyboard, what are you like in person?
Again, I ask the question, why are you so threatened? Did I really insult you with my baseless opinions? Are you such a conventionalist, or do you have an MEng?
Cheers,
Hugh
Let's not go down the personal insult route folks.
Keep it clean and no punching below the belt...Ding-ding, round two 😉
Hugh, I'd be happy to buy you lunch, as I find this whole topic extremely interesting, including the business aspects that are so real, but rarely acknowledged. Unfortunately, we're half a world apart, so just have a beer for me. Let me try to summarize my point of view and see if you agree or disagree-
1) Identical signals sound identical. If you hear a difference in sound, it's because something is physically different, or it's because of mood, weather, biorhythms, etc.
2) Any *physical* difference that results in an audible difference can be measured and quantified using well known electronic methods.
That's it. I don't have your amps, don't know whether they are good or bad. When I say you sell sizzle, I say nothing about your amps, only about the need to generate interest and excitement in the customer so he/she will buy the product. Pure engineering talk won't do that, and you'd be out of business quickly if that was the only thing you relied on. I will speculate that if you have a lot of happy customers, the amps must be reasonably good, but that's not the issue here.
The issue is how one goes about achieving a certain engineering goal, and many of us have strong beliefs that trial and error should be backed up with tests and proofs, otherwise the final claims of how it sounds must be classified as hype and marketing, not claims that can be verified by a third party.
I'll toss out one additional belief, totally unsupported by science. Just consider it the ravings of some nut on the web-
Perfect flat response doesn't sound good. You don't want it in your living room. It's an easy engineering goal for each component- nice ruler flat graph, but somewhere in the system response needs to be altered to please the ear. It can be done anywhere between the music and the ear- the mic, the mix, the CD player, the amp, or the speakers. Probably the room too. The blameless amplifier is, in fact, blameless. Unhappiness with it is the result of expecting perfect flat wideband response to sound good. That seems reasonable on the surface, but the same logic led men to think the earth was the center of the solar system. It just made sense. It was just wrong. One has to view the sound of a system as a system level problem, not in terms of tweeks to individual components, as that makes the problem unmanagable and unsolvable.
[trivia question- why do performance microphones advertise non-flat response as a benefit, with no sense of shame or guilt?]
Regards,
CH
1) Identical signals sound identical. If you hear a difference in sound, it's because something is physically different, or it's because of mood, weather, biorhythms, etc.
2) Any *physical* difference that results in an audible difference can be measured and quantified using well known electronic methods.
That's it. I don't have your amps, don't know whether they are good or bad. When I say you sell sizzle, I say nothing about your amps, only about the need to generate interest and excitement in the customer so he/she will buy the product. Pure engineering talk won't do that, and you'd be out of business quickly if that was the only thing you relied on. I will speculate that if you have a lot of happy customers, the amps must be reasonably good, but that's not the issue here.
The issue is how one goes about achieving a certain engineering goal, and many of us have strong beliefs that trial and error should be backed up with tests and proofs, otherwise the final claims of how it sounds must be classified as hype and marketing, not claims that can be verified by a third party.
I'll toss out one additional belief, totally unsupported by science. Just consider it the ravings of some nut on the web-
Perfect flat response doesn't sound good. You don't want it in your living room. It's an easy engineering goal for each component- nice ruler flat graph, but somewhere in the system response needs to be altered to please the ear. It can be done anywhere between the music and the ear- the mic, the mix, the CD player, the amp, or the speakers. Probably the room too. The blameless amplifier is, in fact, blameless. Unhappiness with it is the result of expecting perfect flat wideband response to sound good. That seems reasonable on the surface, but the same logic led men to think the earth was the center of the solar system. It just made sense. It was just wrong. One has to view the sound of a system as a system level problem, not in terms of tweeks to individual components, as that makes the problem unmanagable and unsolvable.
[trivia question- why do performance microphones advertise non-flat response as a benefit, with no sense of shame or guilt?]
Regards,
CH
I know you did not direct the answer to me Conrad..but i have something to say
And it is something that you may know..but good to remember.
We can measure everything till it enter into human perception...maybe you can measure the internal ear mechanical parts...maybe timpanus ( ear membrane) can be checked using ultrasound or laser techniques.
But what goes after that is very complicated..will enter brain and we do not even know how brain processes those data.
Brain is connected to person character, personal tastes, live experiences the guy had, mood, health and references the guy had learned in this life.
The same signal can be "felt" by one different than other... and evaluation as good and bad will depend of subjective values....
Sound can be understood objectivelly as electrons and wave forms..air pressure and those things...but sound perceived are matter of subjectivity....this is not something measurable....metering are made to scopes and to produce a good communication language, a common language between enginneers...listening is made for humans... and even it's expression..it's translation in words will depends from the one is talking and perceiving things...his language can have signs we do not understand clearly.
Women listen some frequencies better than others...because of babies crying maybe....audition system is adapted, tuned to this ancient job to take care of children..to listen distant cries of children...they hate scratching sounds and hi frequencies steady tones...we do not behave the same way...we males.
And there are differences from person to person.
To know if an amplifier is good for humans..they have to listen...the simple observations and analisis of data will not guarantee good results.
That amplifier a lot of people loves...that one may be good for humans.
Entering inside people's brain...subjective things appear and those things are not measurable now a days...at least i have no idea how to measure those things.....i would be happy to know.
regards,
Carlos
And it is something that you may know..but good to remember.
We can measure everything till it enter into human perception...maybe you can measure the internal ear mechanical parts...maybe timpanus ( ear membrane) can be checked using ultrasound or laser techniques.
But what goes after that is very complicated..will enter brain and we do not even know how brain processes those data.
Brain is connected to person character, personal tastes, live experiences the guy had, mood, health and references the guy had learned in this life.
The same signal can be "felt" by one different than other... and evaluation as good and bad will depend of subjective values....
Sound can be understood objectivelly as electrons and wave forms..air pressure and those things...but sound perceived are matter of subjectivity....this is not something measurable....metering are made to scopes and to produce a good communication language, a common language between enginneers...listening is made for humans... and even it's expression..it's translation in words will depends from the one is talking and perceiving things...his language can have signs we do not understand clearly.
Women listen some frequencies better than others...because of babies crying maybe....audition system is adapted, tuned to this ancient job to take care of children..to listen distant cries of children...they hate scratching sounds and hi frequencies steady tones...we do not behave the same way...we males.
And there are differences from person to person.
To know if an amplifier is good for humans..they have to listen...the simple observations and analisis of data will not guarantee good results.
That amplifier a lot of people loves...that one may be good for humans.
Entering inside people's brain...subjective things appear and those things are not measurable now a days...at least i have no idea how to measure those things.....i would be happy to know.
regards,
Carlos
Hugh,
I appreciate your stance, and your time. My question about "good specs" was not a challenge to you personally, and you did acknowledge the important thing, that the usual THD stuff etc. has become totally inadequate especially for SS. That is my (our!) whole point! Folks keep on saying that amps sound awful despite "good" specs, when the particular stated specs are really following fashion and little else. Ergo, the criticism of specs per se, as soon as something sounds plain, lifeless or whatever, is really rather unfair (to be more truthful, I should have said uninformed).
In general to all: With that I was not elevating specs to more than they should be, just trying to indicate why designers must look at the same and are following a particular route. Indeed, specs need not be quoted at all to non-understanding men-in-the-street. (In fact - see all the rubbish that that had caused mostly because of unscrupulous promotion yellers. Specs should be banned!)
I do sadly notice a misunderstanding of what the hi-fi system is there for. Honourable members mentioned that a well-liked painting need not necessarily be photographically accurate, etc. Quite so! But what about a photo of that painting, usually to show what the original is like? Would one, especially art connoisseurs, put up with that being not an exact copy of the original, i.e. distorted?
I think not!
Our sound systems are (or should be) not there to generate sound. They are there to re-produce; like the photo of the original. (Just for the record, I am naturally not talking of effects systems e.g. guitar amps, etc.) That is generally what many of these arguments can be reduced to. I do not condemn the right of music-making systems - staying with amplifiers, just give the right amount of 2nd and 3rd harmonic generation etc. and au voila! Been there, done that and surprised listeners. Only that is not what I aim at as a designer of hi fidelity amplifiers. It is as simple as looking up the dictionary definition of fidelity. the flawless photo (record) of the original, not a new original.
Let us in the broader sense give both of these the right to exist. But with that comes the obligation to acknowledge as well the ability to recognise the difference, failing which is often the cause of unnecessary and unproductive debate.
Hugh (back to you),
A few posts ago (did not note the number) you gave one of the better dissertations of your kind of stance that I have read. It makes sense and I respect it - Thanks. May I just add, if necessary, that I "argued" your arguments and not yourself; if the latter perception arose I apologise. Though we are both down under (now, now, let us not start a "who is the underest" argument!), I am still remote, otherwise would have liked to meet with you.
Regards.
I appreciate your stance, and your time. My question about "good specs" was not a challenge to you personally, and you did acknowledge the important thing, that the usual THD stuff etc. has become totally inadequate especially for SS. That is my (our!) whole point! Folks keep on saying that amps sound awful despite "good" specs, when the particular stated specs are really following fashion and little else. Ergo, the criticism of specs per se, as soon as something sounds plain, lifeless or whatever, is really rather unfair (to be more truthful, I should have said uninformed).
In general to all: With that I was not elevating specs to more than they should be, just trying to indicate why designers must look at the same and are following a particular route. Indeed, specs need not be quoted at all to non-understanding men-in-the-street. (In fact - see all the rubbish that that had caused mostly because of unscrupulous promotion yellers. Specs should be banned!)
I do sadly notice a misunderstanding of what the hi-fi system is there for. Honourable members mentioned that a well-liked painting need not necessarily be photographically accurate, etc. Quite so! But what about a photo of that painting, usually to show what the original is like? Would one, especially art connoisseurs, put up with that being not an exact copy of the original, i.e. distorted?
I think not!
Our sound systems are (or should be) not there to generate sound. They are there to re-produce; like the photo of the original. (Just for the record, I am naturally not talking of effects systems e.g. guitar amps, etc.) That is generally what many of these arguments can be reduced to. I do not condemn the right of music-making systems - staying with amplifiers, just give the right amount of 2nd and 3rd harmonic generation etc. and au voila! Been there, done that and surprised listeners. Only that is not what I aim at as a designer of hi fidelity amplifiers. It is as simple as looking up the dictionary definition of fidelity. the flawless photo (record) of the original, not a new original.
Let us in the broader sense give both of these the right to exist. But with that comes the obligation to acknowledge as well the ability to recognise the difference, failing which is often the cause of unnecessary and unproductive debate.
Hugh (back to you),
A few posts ago (did not note the number) you gave one of the better dissertations of your kind of stance that I have read. It makes sense and I respect it - Thanks. May I just add, if necessary, that I "argued" your arguments and not yourself; if the latter perception arose I apologise. Though we are both down under (now, now, let us not start a "who is the underest" argument!), I am still remote, otherwise would have liked to meet with you.
Regards.
Gee, I almost cried when I could sit it front of the Blameless for more than 20 minutes at louder levels, and not want to run from the room for breathers. My ultimate test scope and measuring equipment is my wife, especially for high frequencies because she couldnt sit in front of the original blameless either, it would give her a "headache" in her words. Now she can and does perceive major differences and benefits and high frequency that is softer and not etched and hard sounding, in other words she gets no headaches aka ear fatigue. She has no qualms with telling me it sounds like excrement if she thinks so.Perhaps if you know precisely what to look for, in which I dont, you could design this using measuring equipment through the entire process solely but it is far more personal to do with a set of ears or two provided you arent clinically deaf. My older brother is deaf since birth but still even he can sense and perceive certain changes from desgns being alot more in tune with other senses then us with hearing take for granted. My guitarist has 6 years in robotics engineering, he open admits he can do all the math, run any test out there but when it comes to audio designs he finds he needs to take 6 steps back (figuratively speaking) to come out 12 steps ahead..Why do many finest engineering examples drown and put a choke hold on the VAS with miller compensation??, the scope says it linear so it must sound perfect?.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.