You don't suppose that this wine research has anything to do with judging amplifiers ---- do you?
http://tinyurl.com/27k87n
http://tinyurl.com/3bu4ro
ZAP
http://tinyurl.com/27k87n
http://tinyurl.com/3bu4ro
ZAP
Hi Dave,
Well, if we don't keep trying, we will continue to be ignorant.
To believe that amplifiers using different designs and technologies will sound the same is not reasonable. However, as amplifiers of every design come closer to perfection, I believe they will sound more similar. Actually I should say that you wouldn't hear the amplifier in those cases.
Do I market amplifiers? No. I do repair and slightly improve their performance. I use both test equipment and my ears to home in on better results. Design-by-ear (alone) is certainly not going to get you to a good design.
BTW, SY does not like to camp. He failed kindergarten and doesn't share well.
He does walk a mean walk though! I know for a fact that he does not believe all amplifiers sound the same. He did build one heck of a nice preamp.
-Chris
Well, if we don't keep trying, we will continue to be ignorant.
To believe that amplifiers using different designs and technologies will sound the same is not reasonable. However, as amplifiers of every design come closer to perfection, I believe they will sound more similar. Actually I should say that you wouldn't hear the amplifier in those cases.
Do I market amplifiers? No. I do repair and slightly improve their performance. I use both test equipment and my ears to home in on better results. Design-by-ear (alone) is certainly not going to get you to a good design.
BTW, SY does not like to camp. He failed kindergarten and doesn't share well.
He does walk a mean walk though! I know for a fact that he does not believe all amplifiers sound the same. He did build one heck of a nice preamp.-Chris
zapnspark said:You don't suppose that this wine research has anything to do with judging amplifiers ---- do you?
http://tinyurl.com/27k87n
http://tinyurl.com/3bu4ro
ZAP
Well, I did actually think about using a brain scanner to test/measure the quality of sound, but nothing new in that it seems...but I suppose the scanner may make interferense and ruin the good sound
anatech said:
We do need to keep pushing our testing knowledge forward.... at some point i believe that we will be able to fully quantize an amplifier.
We juat got a spectrum analyzer (a couple decades old HP -- still very useful) and are just starting to explore how what it measures correlates to what we hear.
dave
Hi Dave,
Yes, an HP 3585A. It's already revealing a number of things that I could only imagine before. I can extend it's range by hanging it on the monitor out of my HP 339A THD meter. The maximum resolution is 3 Hz. I also picked up a (broken) HP 3580A that resolves to 1 Hz. The neat thing is that these are not FFT based machines, but real swept filters. No windowing issues.
I also got an EMU 1212 sound card. Installed but not connected to my bench yet. Balanced in and out also.
At any rate, I am starting to be able to see far more in measurements. The new bench will be shielded below the work surface and I hope to stick most of the bigger gear in an equipment rack or two. This should also cut down on the fan noise and loose cables.
-Chris
Yes, an HP 3585A. It's already revealing a number of things that I could only imagine before. I can extend it's range by hanging it on the monitor out of my HP 339A THD meter. The maximum resolution is 3 Hz. I also picked up a (broken) HP 3580A that resolves to 1 Hz. The neat thing is that these are not FFT based machines, but real swept filters. No windowing issues.
I also got an EMU 1212 sound card. Installed but not connected to my bench yet. Balanced in and out also.
At any rate, I am starting to be able to see far more in measurements. The new bench will be shielded below the work surface and I hope to stick most of the bigger gear in an equipment rack or two. This should also cut down on the fan noise and loose cables.
-Chris
Re : yes, no ...
Pano,
please get me off that list.
I do think some amps sound different, but I'm convinced that great majority of competently designed ones doesn't (unless pushed by odd speakers. Examples of odd - Apogee Scintilla, original Watt, most older generation electrostats etc.).
Peter Walker is a great example of professional amp designer who openly supported the notion that competently designed amplifiers will not sound different on competently designed speakers (and yes he used one of the most resolving speakers of all time, the legendary ESL57). In fact he challenged 'golden ears' to hear the difference among three generations of very different Quad amps (valve AND solid state), and they all failed.
So go ahead and call me names, but person who designed some of the wold's best speakers surely can't be accused to be deaf.
Bratislav
Pano,
please get me off that list.
I do think some amps sound different, but I'm convinced that great majority of competently designed ones doesn't (unless pushed by odd speakers. Examples of odd - Apogee Scintilla, original Watt, most older generation electrostats etc.).
Peter Walker is a great example of professional amp designer who openly supported the notion that competently designed amplifiers will not sound different on competently designed speakers (and yes he used one of the most resolving speakers of all time, the legendary ESL57). In fact he challenged 'golden ears' to hear the difference among three generations of very different Quad amps (valve AND solid state), and they all failed.
So go ahead and call me names, but person who designed some of the wold's best speakers surely can't be accused to be deaf.
Bratislav
Re: Re: Re : yes, no ...
Dave,
can't say 'lately', it was more than 20 years probably... using ESL57's there was no difference that I could talk about between Bedini 25's, Hiraga's 20W class A, Electrocompaniet (forgot the model) and 303. It was a different story on 3 parallel pairs though
planet10 said:
Dave,
can't say 'lately', it was more than 20 years probably... using ESL57's there was no difference that I could talk about between Bedini 25's, Hiraga's 20W class A, Electrocompaniet (forgot the model) and 303. It was a different story on 3 parallel pairs though
Hey Bratislav - I'd take you off the list, but I'm afraid the damage is done. I'm not going near that list again, too many guys here in the "grumpy old men" category. No, I won't list them.
I did test a Quad 303 (and 405) amps against a Hiraga 20W Class-A on Quad panels about 20 years ago too. As well as a big 20W DHT SET amp (811 tube, IIRC). The differences were so huge, they made us laugh out loud. The 2 quad amps were about the same, tho.
These were double stacked Quad ESLs, so NOT an easy load for an amp. Never tried to measure the signal at the output of the amps, but I'll bet they looked quite different driving the Quads.
As for photographers, they may not subscribe to the same voodoo as Audiophiles, but they have their own quirks. I worked in several camera stores back in the film days. We would get the "Leica-heads" in. What did they take photos of? Scenics, naked babes, sports? No - lens charts. Endless lens charts. They would bring the charts into the shop to brag about the resolving power of their Leitz optics, or to moan about how they were not sharp enough. Oy, I can do without that stuff.
BTW, I do hi-res scans of art 40 hours a week. All lenses, lights and cameras are not created equal, but neither are the painters.
I did test a Quad 303 (and 405) amps against a Hiraga 20W Class-A on Quad panels about 20 years ago too. As well as a big 20W DHT SET amp (811 tube, IIRC). The differences were so huge, they made us laugh out loud. The 2 quad amps were about the same, tho.
These were double stacked Quad ESLs, so NOT an easy load for an amp. Never tried to measure the signal at the output of the amps, but I'll bet they looked quite different driving the Quads.
As for photographers, they may not subscribe to the same voodoo as Audiophiles, but they have their own quirks. I worked in several camera stores back in the film days. We would get the "Leica-heads" in. What did they take photos of? Scenics, naked babes, sports? No - lens charts. Endless lens charts. They would bring the charts into the shop to brag about the resolving power of their Leitz optics, or to moan about how they were not sharp enough. Oy, I can do without that stuff.
BTW, I do hi-res scans of art 40 hours a week. All lenses, lights and cameras are not created equal, but neither are the painters.
The key sentence would be "there´s no audible difference" , because at a first glance the measurements can only tell whether there is a measurable difference (depends only on the resolution and/or effort) everything beyond that point is interpretation based on psychoacoustics.
As this grand debate is ongoing since i joined the AES and started afair in the mid 70´s one could notice that the arguments hasn´t changed over the years.
Measurement resolution is better nowadays and with a decent soundcard and for example bwaslos diffmaker quite easy to do some experiments with modern amplifiers and amplifiers from the 70´s and 80´s .
Normally in these tests it´s quite difficult to find amplifiers that show no differences in real world test setups and thats the point where the discussion starts again.
Subjective listening is fine (at least we all base our decisions normally not on double blind tests and in the professional day work there no time for this), but of course that is not sufficient in a scientific context.
So to convince other people that there is something to hear a reproduceble positive double blind test is the only way, but as pointed out before, it´s not that easy to set up a proper blind test and a carefully analysis of well documented blind tests in this field show that they often don´t meet scientific standards what makes the results less applicable for the rest of the world.
Wishes
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.