Nah I am not that think skinned....
I think the JA200 was something special by all accounts; I can't believe it was the same kind of animal as the integrated amp you heard. It was 200 watt monoblock with something like 16 output tubes and cost about $30,000. I did not hear one, but I heard a friends system (which was great) that was blown away by the Jadis. But that was more than 10 years ago and it's hard to remember how good that sounds now. But the point of the comment was that amp was pretty much universally lauded but measured horribly.
And I am sure that you know examples of amps that supposedly measure great and have very small output impedances but sound like ****
Anyway I will give it a try with some big psu caps. Any tips on what I should try?
I think the JA200 was something special by all accounts; I can't believe it was the same kind of animal as the integrated amp you heard. It was 200 watt monoblock with something like 16 output tubes and cost about $30,000. I did not hear one, but I heard a friends system (which was great) that was blown away by the Jadis. But that was more than 10 years ago and it's hard to remember how good that sounds now. But the point of the comment was that amp was pretty much universally lauded but measured horribly.
And I am sure that you know examples of amps that supposedly measure great and have very small output impedances but sound like ****
Anyway I will give it a try with some big psu caps. Any tips on what I should try?
fdegrove said:
Frank, I said that I don't know the JA200, so I have no idea if it's good or not.
I just commented on my listening experience with two Jadis integrated amps, and I didn't like it.
If you ask me the models, I don't remember.
I'm sure the problem was the amps because they were changed and compared, on the same system, with an SS amp, and with a class-D amp. Either of these amps were a big step up.
Hi Folks,
I ran across this thread and what's it morphed to.
In any case, I'm curious about this "Measures bad - but sounds good" claim. How could this possibly be? I guess sounds good is pure subjective and coloring the sound in some way makes it sound good to some.
I often read terms like warm and airy but these are usually in place of any actually measurement. And of course it depends in what context I hear warm to what I think it means.
Is it possible to capture/record this "sounds good" that one could play back on headphones or somehow to hear what it's about.
I ran across this thread and what's it morphed to.
In any case, I'm curious about this "Measures bad - but sounds good" claim. How could this possibly be? I guess sounds good is pure subjective and coloring the sound in some way makes it sound good to some.
I often read terms like warm and airy but these are usually in place of any actually measurement. And of course it depends in what context I hear warm to what I think it means.
Is it possible to capture/record this "sounds good" that one could play back on headphones or somehow to hear what it's about.
That's a truly excellent idea. But getting it to sound to all people like it is 'supposed' to sound is going to be difficult, because the original listening tests and measurements needed to capture the effects are often at the limits of measurability themselves.
Something failrly similar is done quite often, where a pure signal is subtracted from the output of an amplifier (for example), increasing distortion say 10 times. This can then expose the character of the distortion better.
As far as "measuring bad sounding good", that's more often than not just poor measurements (like THD) which don't correlate well (or at all) with the way we hear. I vaguely remember there were some good arguments at the beginning of this thread.
Something failrly similar is done quite often, where a pure signal is subtracted from the output of an amplifier (for example), increasing distortion say 10 times. This can then expose the character of the distortion better.
As far as "measuring bad sounding good", that's more often than not just poor measurements (like THD) which don't correlate well (or at all) with the way we hear. I vaguely remember there were some good arguments at the beginning of this thread.
Hi,
If it measures good does it then mean it sounds good?
This may be an interesting thread for some of you to read:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72052
Cheers, 😉
If it measures good does it then mean it sounds good?
This may be an interesting thread for some of you to read:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72052
Cheers, 😉
Once an equaliser has been adjusted for a certain listening position, speakers, room and recording, it will sound pretty good but will beasure very bad. 😀😀😀
If you're using the right measurements, then yes "If it measures good then it sounds good"
If it turns out the people thing a certain amount of distortion and compression "sounds good - then they should be part of the "sound good" measurements. These extras seem subjective, I think I'd rather not have them.
I tend to think the amp should be accurate and let people add preprocessing to get a "sound" they'd like.
I think that chip amps can be highly accurate, and have their places in good audio solutions.
If it turns out the people thing a certain amount of distortion and compression "sounds good - then they should be part of the "sound good" measurements. These extras seem subjective, I think I'd rather not have them.
I tend to think the amp should be accurate and let people add preprocessing to get a "sound" they'd like.
I think that chip amps can be highly accurate, and have their places in good audio solutions.
raintalk said:
How do you explain soudstage by numbers?
Know what? Vinyl has typically ~25bd channel separation and I'm just drooling with such a fantastic, realistic soundstage.
Neil Young on vinyl. Can't stop listening.
New phono pre, just finished.
Orgasmatic. 😎
How do you explain "soundstage"
If you have two amps that measure identical can one have better soundstage than the other? If so - then it seams that you've missed something in the measurements.
If you have two amps that measure identical can one have better soundstage than the other? If so - then it seams that you've missed something in the measurements.
It seems that nobody has yet been able to measure the right things in the right conditions to be able to correlate good sound with good measurements.
Most measurements are taken with sine or square waves and just don't correlate with good sound.
I am convinced that if you could find the right way to measure then it would be possible to correlate. But I doubt that it would be a very simple thing. For example how could you describe in figures the difference between two amps, one of which has better retrieval of low level details, the other has more bass "slam" (for example)
Now, I would like to address those who seem to think that GCs are truly accurate whereas the supposedly good tube amps are merely euphonically coloring the music to make it sound nice (as one writer wrote implying that tube amps were like an equalizer for the timid)
The thing is this: the difference that I hear between my GC and my tube amps does not really relate to frequency response particularly. The realy differences lie in (a) the way that the soundstage is more vivid and three dimensional, the way that individual instruments are more solidly defined in space, and stay in the same place - this is the most obvious one...(b) the way that you can hear low level sounds while louder sounds are playing, rather than the low level sounds being lost in the louder sounds (c) the way that low level details are revealed that gives you the "I've never heard that bit before" effect even on recordings you have known for years. (d) the way that you can hear echoes and room ambience that were previously masked
These are the kind of things that I don't think GCs do that well. IMHO
Most measurements are taken with sine or square waves and just don't correlate with good sound.
I am convinced that if you could find the right way to measure then it would be possible to correlate. But I doubt that it would be a very simple thing. For example how could you describe in figures the difference between two amps, one of which has better retrieval of low level details, the other has more bass "slam" (for example)
Now, I would like to address those who seem to think that GCs are truly accurate whereas the supposedly good tube amps are merely euphonically coloring the music to make it sound nice (as one writer wrote implying that tube amps were like an equalizer for the timid)
The thing is this: the difference that I hear between my GC and my tube amps does not really relate to frequency response particularly. The realy differences lie in (a) the way that the soundstage is more vivid and three dimensional, the way that individual instruments are more solidly defined in space, and stay in the same place - this is the most obvious one...(b) the way that you can hear low level sounds while louder sounds are playing, rather than the low level sounds being lost in the louder sounds (c) the way that low level details are revealed that gives you the "I've never heard that bit before" effect even on recordings you have known for years. (d) the way that you can hear echoes and room ambience that were previously masked
These are the kind of things that I don't think GCs do that well. IMHO
Soundstage is where you close your eyes and you can point to individual instruments and voices and tell where they are both left-to-right and front-to-back.
Mobody seems to be able to mearure it. But if you have a system that does soundstages well then it's very obvious.
Mobody seems to be able to mearure it. But if you have a system that does soundstages well then it's very obvious.
Question is:
What makes an amplifier good?
A) Good amplifier makes a good sound.
Even if output signal is different from input.
or
B) Good amplifier put out a signal which corresponds very close to input signal.
As little as possible is added or removed from signal.
........................................
For me B) is a good amplifier
there might be other parts of sound system that can colour signal
like loudspeakers
But my amplifier should aim for low distortion of all sorts.
Zero distortion means input = output.
If I want to listen to a recording made by some artist/producer
and experience his intentions with this recording,
I should aim for Hi-fi = high fidelity.
fidelity = be true to
in this case a sound system
that gives as true as possible sound reproduction of a recorded material
What are your thoughts?
What makes an amplifier good?
A) Good amplifier makes a good sound.
Even if output signal is different from input.
or
B) Good amplifier put out a signal which corresponds very close to input signal.
As little as possible is added or removed from signal.
........................................
For me B) is a good amplifier
there might be other parts of sound system that can colour signal
like loudspeakers
But my amplifier should aim for low distortion of all sorts.
Zero distortion means input = output.
If I want to listen to a recording made by some artist/producer
and experience his intentions with this recording,
I should aim for Hi-fi = high fidelity.
fidelity = be true to
in this case a sound system
that gives as true as possible sound reproduction of a recorded material
What are your thoughts?
raintalk said:
Not true.
Vinyl measures bad, should sound like cr@p, compared to CD.
If you read my previous post, I'm saying that 25db channel separation can sound better than 100db (on CD). And there's no shortage of channel separation.
Good amplifier is one which, when used in your system, makes the most lifelike presentation of the original recording. Obviously.
It does have an analog with the CD vs Vinyl situation; anyone who thinks that the best CDs are better than the best Vinyl just have not heard the best vinyl
I think what happens with GCs is this: they are so much far and away better than what the builder previously had that they generate a huge enthusiasm (which is good). I certainly agree that they sound good. I would put them at the edges of the "high end". But the lower edges. It's just that most people have not heard extremely good amps apart from maybe at hifi shows or hifi shops where often the setup and presentation leaves much to be desired.
Think of it this way. If someone were to say that your GC did not really sound good, better than that cheap receiver, but that it was simply being euphonic, how would you counter. After all, you know darned well that it sounds better...it's obvious, right?
It does have an analog with the CD vs Vinyl situation; anyone who thinks that the best CDs are better than the best Vinyl just have not heard the best vinyl
I think what happens with GCs is this: they are so much far and away better than what the builder previously had that they generate a huge enthusiasm (which is good). I certainly agree that they sound good. I would put them at the edges of the "high end". But the lower edges. It's just that most people have not heard extremely good amps apart from maybe at hifi shows or hifi shops where often the setup and presentation leaves much to be desired.
Think of it this way. If someone were to say that your GC did not really sound good, better than that cheap receiver, but that it was simply being euphonic, how would you counter. After all, you know darned well that it sounds better...it's obvious, right?
beau2317 said:
Considering how our ear masks or unmasks some frequency ranges when others are boosted or cut, and how our built-in "echo cancellation" brain-DSP works, this is just a matter of equalisation. Try to cut the midbass 200-500Hz and you will discover a new mid-trebble dimension. Try to cut the mid-trebble (1500-4000Hz) and you will discover new midbass and trebble worlds... Move the speakers one or two feet so that room interaction changes and... wow!
Then blame electronics, although it's always the most ideal part of the audio chain (but the easiest to know and blame). Why no one blames room walls or air, if these elements are far more troublesome than amplifiers? Damn, I can hear walls instead of op-amps.
I'm always puzzled at the lack of knowledge that most people shows about themselves and the working of their own body and senses. Wouldn't be better if we came with an user manual? 😀
beau2317 said:
I know what you are talking about, and my amp doesn't do that.
We are certainly talking about totally different amps, but there's always a generalization here, just because it uses a chip (or even the same chip).
Btw your 'GC' can't drive your speakers properly.
That's for sure.
...yes for sure. But most systems don't do this.
I was only changing the amplifier, not the walls, EQ or anything else. So how could they have an effect? I was specifically taking about what happens when you take a system and replace amp A with amp B (or amp G with amp V). I wish you folks would get over the "it's all in the EQ"...it isn't. If it were you could reproduce these thngs with an equalizer. And you can't.
It's not so much a case of "does" or "doesn't" do that. It's a matter of degree. Amp V does it better than Amp G
Now it's possible (though debatable) that Amp G does not drive my main speakers properly.
So that's why I tested this on at least 3 other sets of speakers. I am really talking about the whole set of results. (and as I got similar results on all speakers, I wonder whether the theory that the GC can't drive my maggies holds true..it certainly sounds like it is drving them OK. Sounds pretty much the same - or slightly better- than my old Meridian 605s)
Sure, my amp is different to your amp. But the point of this exercise was to try to build as standard a GC as I could, which I why I picked Peter's (well lauded) kit and followed the instructions to the letter.
I do plan to now try hot-rodding it. Suggestions welcome.
But my gut feel is that it's going to have a hard time catching up with Amp V due to the rather large difference that currently exists.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.