I doubt that Peter Walker was a real solid state designer. I had a conversation with the young fellow who designed the Quad 405 about 33 years ago. He was not Peter Walker.
If only everyone here actually knew more about audio, it would be easier to come to an understanding.
For the record Dr. Hawksford, and I are colleagues, and we have traded info for more than 25 years. Yes, it is true that HE can contribute to the 'JAES' but none of the rest of us can, even though we successfully contributed in the '70's and '80's. He is just positioned in too powerful a position to be excluded. Still, Dr. Lipshitz and/or his cronies run the show, and have done so for the last 25 years.
If only everyone here actually knew more about audio, it would be easier to come to an understanding.
For the record Dr. Hawksford, and I are colleagues, and we have traded info for more than 25 years. Yes, it is true that HE can contribute to the 'JAES' but none of the rest of us can, even though we successfully contributed in the '70's and '80's. He is just positioned in too powerful a position to be excluded. Still, Dr. Lipshitz and/or his cronies run the show, and have done so for the last 25 years.
Care to name said cronies? If you have no publishing access to the JAES, then you don't really have anything to lose by doing so. I would argue things are best brought out in the open, so that charges may be addressed by the charged, or others on their behalf. Even if it doesn't lead to any resolution, at least those of us looking from the side can form opinions based on full information.
Abzug, you are making a mountain out of molehill. Telling you anything about the 'politics of audio' is not useful. However, you are quick to judge hard working audio designers and manufacturers without any evidence. Just your conclusions, made without any supporting facts. If you don't know the 'cronies' of Dr. Lipshitz, then you are at square 1. I have debated publically, privately, and by LTE, each and every one of them. I can't afford to get you up to speed, when I have a 30 year head start.
Knowledge is cumulative, and good thing too: human lives are too short--if everyone started from scratch, there'd be no progress.
Also, I'm not quick to judge anything. It's just that as a scientist, I accept claims when evidence is presented, while at the same time realizing that audio quality is not a solved problem and more research is needed. It's a question of methodology, really: not whether all amplifiers sound the same, but how do you go about justifying either position? I'm not assuming either side is correct right now and I would say there is not enough information at this point. If I'm seen as arguing one side more than the other, it's to provide some balance. With non-audio engineers I know I'm usually on the other side, asking them to be more open minded and realize they've not measured everything the ear-brain might detect.
Lest someone try to put me in a category like the list of camps a few pages ago: I'll not say all level-matched and moderately low THD amplifiers sound the same; I'm just skeptical of most of the anecdotal evidence presented about audible difference, and reject as irrational the claim that blind testing is fundamentally flawed, when it's in fact the only rational approach to obtain an unassailable result. But I also agree that most blind tests this far seem to have various problems, that measurements alone are not decisive given the lack of a metric well correlated with perception, and that it's possible there are audible differences even in equipment with very low standard measures of distortion, with increasing likelihood of aural detectability as all parts of the chain are improved (one reason why I'm playing around with plasma speakers, as this stage of the chain is the worst performer and who knows what it could be masking).
Lest someone try to put me in a category like the list of camps a few pages ago: I'll not say all level-matched and moderately low THD amplifiers sound the same; I'm just skeptical of most of the anecdotal evidence presented about audible difference, and reject as irrational the claim that blind testing is fundamentally flawed, when it's in fact the only rational approach to obtain an unassailable result. But I also agree that most blind tests this far seem to have various problems, that measurements alone are not decisive given the lack of a metric well correlated with perception, and that it's possible there are audible differences even in equipment with very low standard measures of distortion, with increasing likelihood of aural detectability as all parts of the chain are improved (one reason why I'm playing around with plasma speakers, as this stage of the chain is the worst performer and who knows what it could be masking).
Scientist? Prove it! Perhaps, I should elaborate: I am not a scientist, I am a design engineer with a degree in physics, just like Charles Hansen (now in the sin bin, and what I am trying to avoid). Jack Bybee, the often debated person on this website is a physicist, but with only a masters degree (something he always regrets, because of the problems he had supervising PhD's decades ago. SY is a PhD in material science, BUT he doesn't seem to keep up with the 'profession', as far as I can tell. His job is interesting and leaves him plenty of time for his family with which I approve. He just makes all tube electronics as a hobby and does pretty well at it.
I hired my first PhD in 1974 for a special filter project, beyond my ability. I am sometimes hired by PhD's to solve their problems in low noise design, and amplifier topology. Now where do you fit into all this? As a scientist.
I hired my first PhD in 1974 for a special filter project, beyond my ability. I am sometimes hired by PhD's to solve their problems in low noise design, and amplifier topology. Now where do you fit into all this? As a scientist.
You should know better than to pull ad hominems. It has no bearing upon the discussion (not to mention that as most posters on this site, I'm not using my real name here).
abzug said:
Now that is a really good example of point scoring. This is the solid state forum, right? And I go on to discuss snubbers later in my post. Try to read things in context please.
Rob
Seems to me you're the one trying to score points--though this is the Solid State forum, it's pretty damn obvious that the discussion is general enough to apply to amplifiers of any sort. The specific forum this thread is in is a mere detail and does not restrict its scope--I doubt anyone here is anal enough to assume that.Robert F said:
abzug said:
Given my post concerned the optimisation of solid state amplifiers with particular emphasis on the Quad 405, can we just leave it Azbug that I was talking about Solid State?
Whilst this was not stated in so many words we can rely upon a modicum of common sense from the people reading the post so that we don't have to endlessly qualify everything we say.
Oh, the snubbers post. I did go outside its scope, but my point is I was still within scope of the thread.
And my motivation wasn't to score any points; I was just putting in a plug for tubes 😉
They also don't have thermal memory at audio frequencies (how about we do some audibility studies on that? I bet not all SS amplifiers would measure the same on Perrot's test, and it might turn out correlated with perception). Now if only we had a PNP-analog in the tube world, I wouldn't bother with solid state...
And my motivation wasn't to score any points; I was just putting in a plug for tubes 😉
They also don't have thermal memory at audio frequencies (how about we do some audibility studies on that? I bet not all SS amplifiers would measure the same on Perrot's test, and it might turn out correlated with perception). Now if only we had a PNP-analog in the tube world, I wouldn't bother with solid state...
john curl said:
Even if what you say is true, it has no bearing on the discussion. He knew about the design well enough, see for example
http://www.quadesl.org/Album/InterviewsReviews/Quad405WirelessW1975.doc
He signed that article, not the obscure "young fellow".
And Walker was definitely not deaf, disinterested in audio or had a hidden agenda (as some people here have). In fact the opposite is true - he had nothing to gain and everything to lose from making fools of the audophile elite of the day.
In any case, let's hear about Dunlavy or Linkwitz - did they get others to do the electronics for them too ?
And talking about conspiracies, why don't we see here a show of hands of how many people from the "amps sound different" camp stand to lose money if contrary is proven ? Let's get the commercial interests out into the open.
Who, me? I don't know a JJ; I'm a Bobby.john curl said:JJ, is that you? Don't be bashful. Fess up!
Sorry, it can be a process of elimination, sometimes. However, if you call yourself a scientist, and refuse to back up your claims of what you do or know, I cannot not take your questions seriously, in future.
And why is that? Questions stand on their own and don't need the backing of reputation. Any logician will tell you that. This is a rational discussion, not politics.john curl said:
Any fool can ask a difficult question. For example, did any person really go to the Moon? Prove it to me, and I will play the cynical questioner, in this case. It is just 'a rational discussion' isn't it?
If it was the topic of discussion, sure. But the topic here is audibility of differences between amplifiers, and my questions have been pertinent to that discussion.
I certainly am not cynical and I resent that accusation. I've entered this thread expecting discussion in good faith, but clearly that's not what you're interested in.
I certainly am not cynical and I resent that accusation. I've entered this thread expecting discussion in good faith, but clearly that's not what you're interested in.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.