Agree about the "best". It's not that I don't want to discuss DBT/psychoacoustics. It's one of the most interesting audio discussions to have, if people can keep their cool, and have their wits about them. But I certainly don't want to see it discussed in every d*mn thread. Sometimes you just want to see nice ideas develop. It's like we have our own Godwin's Law, but graced with a particular kind of tirelessness.
Good on Audioholics.
In a perfect world, yes. In real world where audiophile myths are always present such as online forums open to public, no. It's like saying, "Oh, man, taking this anti-virus is such a hassle, can't we just have a germ free open to public environment?" Not possible. 🙁
tubelab.com made a pretty good point to which I would like to add that I personally can only tell that two appliances probably sound different to me in that moment and maybe I prefer one to the other. Often I might still not like any of them.
To really evaluate an appliance by just listening I need hours spread over many days.
Measuring helps a lot. But to really tell for example if the new crossover point is "better" for me than the old one, given that the speaker measures "OK" (you are right, what's "OK"??) it often takes me a week or two to figure out if there's nothing "wrong" with it for me.
To really evaluate an appliance by just listening I need hours spread over many days.
Measuring helps a lot. But to really tell for example if the new crossover point is "better" for me than the old one, given that the speaker measures "OK" (you are right, what's "OK"??) it often takes me a week or two to figure out if there's nothing "wrong" with it for me.
The myth hunters aren't always correct; that's the problem.
Mea culpa. Let me rephrase. The myth hunters seem to think they are always correct. There lies a potential niggle.
Last edited:
I don't know about myth hunters but there are myth busters (not the TV show). For example, cable burn-in, that myth has been busted via objective comparisons long ago but they still spring up on audio forums.
If a guy wants to make subjective comparisons of his amps, he is free to do so to his heart's content. But when he shows up on forums and start making claims based on it, there will be challenges. If any audio forum doesn't have that, you don't want to go there for useful info.
The problem remains that when even people like Planck say things like "We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future," the self-appointed policers of truth seem to lack this humility. Even scientific fact is not as fixed as many would like to think.
This is so OT, that it's not worth continuing. So cheers. Enjoy your thread.
No need to delve into quantum theory. Today's audio measuring technology can measure and show everything we can hear and beyond. What some people confuse with is the perception vs. performance. Former is in the mind of the listener and latter is outside of that (soundwave in this context).
The real problem is when bogus claims go unchallenged. There are professional shills on forums pushing audiophile myths for their financial gain. They are very persistent (it happens when money is the motivator) and some readers fall for that, unfortunately, like I once did which resulted in big waste of money and time.
For example, there is a seller of overpriced "fancy" DAC who's been posting on audio forums to promote the myth about superior sound of his DAC which costs over $700. When others confronted him with DBT, he reacted very much like Joe Roberts, saying how flawed DBT is.
Another example, a hi-end AV store in Seattle, the owner has his own AV forum designed to promote the same old myth as that DAC seller does. Anyone who exposes his myth on that forum gets banned.
And now, one of the biggest culprits, Robert Harley. You can read about his shill operation all over the web.
It's a jungle out there. Be careful.
You seem so sure about some (probably not all) of the correlation of measured parameters with human perception. It may as well be as you claim that on some particular tests, amplifiers that "measured" close enough did sound the same on a certain loudspeaker on a certain room to a certain listeners. But it does not help me to understand more when a claim of "measured the same" is made without corresponding background of measured parameters, tolerances, limits of measuring equipments, the loudspeakers and room types they are tested on and the type (and capability) of attendant listener. I had experience with amps that sound similar with a particular set of speakers sound distinctly different with others.
How do we define measured as "the same" for everybody? What parameter tolerances are allowed (to define "sameness") for level, phase coherence, damping factor, THD, IMD, distortion spectra, group delay? How to select a standard for varieties of listening rooms and loudspeaker systems to test based on sensitivity, frequency response, impedance response, damping, resonances, phase coherence, early reflections, dispersions, directivity and other parameters to test and listen and really say that the amplifiers being tested sounds the same? There are parameter to perception correlations that are still unclear. As an example, how to predict differences in depth and width of soundstage of the presentation from measurement.
I claim no expertise, just trying to understand here. The OP has stated what he wants, shown his room and loudspeaker with measurement. Perhaps you could suggest an amp that will mate well with his existing room and system, or maybe a strategy to choose one? That will also interest me very much.
@Evenharmonics. Thanks for the video link.
Never said it was, you were there, I was not. When background setting was not described, the experience is of little value to those not present during test.
Are you saying it is common occurrence that listeners can not distinguish different amps on level matched DBT? Maybe the tests need improvement so listeners can distinguish the amps and tests yield meaningful result.
Post #39 does not take OP existing system into account. Technically an 801A or a 50 SET amp will meet OP requirement of ~4W, however since I had no direct experience with both, I refrain from saying anything. Do you have any amplifier design suggestion suitable for his Troels Gravesen designed TQWT-mkIII?
Follow the links. You can read about background settings.
That's the observation I posted.
You've got this backwards. You too need to get yourself acquainted with the process of audio DBT. Did you watch that video all the way through?
You are not him, why do you care?
This is a perfect example of how to destroy a thread with vacuous antisocial trolling. And it's not the first time either. The same rubbish just goes on and on. Shameful.
I did.
Similar situation. One set of my speakers is a Fostex 206e on TQWT cabinet 96dB/W/m and I currently am looking for a suitable SET design to build, difference to OP's system is mainly on speaker Qts, impedance and mid-high frequency response, was hoping to learn from your experience since you have strong and firm opinion. Efficient speakers >92dB/W/m tend to accentuate differences in amps indistinguishable on speakers >86dB/W/m, more so on full range box without any crossover network. Amps that can do 50-70dB null with lower efficiency speaker system may not do so on more efficient speakers unless modification to the amps are made. However, it's perfectly understandable if you choose not to share your experience.
I read many things on the links including Carver's "70dB null while driving a very difficult load". Looks to me that to achieve a 50dB null (still audibly different) requires extensive modification on the Stereophile challenge, and a null on one type of speaker is not guaranteed to be valid on other speaker.
Care to share your observation where listeners can not distinguish different amps on level matched DBT with no modification? Did the test include my type or the OP speaker? Did it include amps with critical (not high) damping factor? Was the room large? Treated?
Anyway, if you have nothing more to suggest on suitable SET amp for the OP or me, this discussion becomes OT. I wish to pursue no further.
Don't feed the troll. You should never have carried out this discussion in the first place. Maybe now you'll know in future.
Try not to confuse shill exposure or audiophile myth busting with antisocial act. Also, you are free to ignore threads or posters of your choice.
Then why are you asking the questions that would have been answered by that video? Perhaps you didn't understand the contents in that video and need to watch more than once.
Others already posted recommendations. You don't need my input, unless you think I'm THE authority in SET amps. 😕
You targeted me because I posted things you disagree with. The problem with your preconceived notion (following 2 quotes made it clear) on DBT and audio measurements is that it's based on fiction.
Which precise comparison method did you use to discover this?
You are trying to bait me. I've dealt with posters like you many times before. You won't succeed. Why? Because audio science is against you.
You prefer the sound of certain speaker? Find amp that's compatible with it. You prefer the sound of SET amp? Find speaker that's compatible with it.
You too are free to ignore threads or posters of your choice. Nice try with baits but your technique is real basic compared to others I've seen (some are professional shills).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.