abzug said:No, you also have a mind with the ability to reason. Or, at least some people do...
And that is the same mind that have to decide what you hear...
OK now I understand, you can only trust part of your mind, that is if you have one....
Make sense, thanks
Well, it's much harder to design low distortion speakers than low distortion amplifiers, so this situation doesn't seem surprising. But this is a criticism of both sides: perhaps if speaker designers made their speakers not so terribly high in distortion, differences between electronics would be easier to hear.
I've done both, yes you can build speakers that are less influenced by amplifiers (I don't like them) and you can build speakers that react closer to what it get from the amplifier, these will easilly show differences in amplification etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "less influenced by amplifiers". A speaker's goal is to produce acoustic waves that follow the amplifier's output voltage. The output of the amplifier is the influence upon the speaker. If the influence is less, that means the speaker sensitivity is less. But what does that have to do with sound quality? Do you mean the reactive behavior of speakers causing interactions with the amplifier? Or the non-flat response of speakers? Can you please rephrase your description into electromechanical terms to remove ambiguity?Andre Visser said:you can build speakers that are less influenced by amplifiers (I don't like them) and you can build speakers that react closer to what it get from the amplifier, these will easilly show differences in amplification etc.
abzug said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "less influenced by amplifiers". A speaker's goal is to produce acoustic waves that follow the amplifier's output voltage. The output of the amplifier is the influence upon the speaker. If the influence is less, that means the speaker sensitivity is less. But what does that have to do with sound quality? Do you mean the reactive behavior of speakers causing interactions with the amplifier? Or the non-flat response of speakers? Can you please rephrase your description into electromechanical terms to remove ambiguity?
You are right, a speaker's goal is to produce acoustic waves that follow the amplifier's output voltage, but that is achieved by different amounts of effectiveness and tastes.
Just to name one, you can use relative inefficient drivers that are more influenced by their own momentum and box resonances or use more efficient one's that react closer to the audio signal from the amplifier and less from it's own momentum and box influences.
The latter should give you sound more true to the recording (also shows flaws) while the first tend to hide some flaws (and detail), if you use these speakers, amplifiers (everything) will obviously have less influence.
Bratislav said: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.
I don't understand your reasoning here, the only one's that can lose money are those that design and manufacture poor amplifiers (that you can buy at any price) but then they will be the one's that claim no difference.
Andre Visser said:
You are right, a speaker's goal is to produce acoustic waves that follow the amplifier's output voltage, but that is achieved by different amounts of effectiveness and tastes.
Just to name one, you can use relative inefficient drivers that are more influenced by their own momentum and box resonances or use more efficient one's that react closer to the audio signal from the amplifier and less from it's own momentum and box influences.
The latter should give you sound more true to the recording (also shows flaws) while the first tend to hide some flaws (and detail), if you use these speakers, amplifiers (everything) will obviously have less influence.
Naa, you'r both wrong! 😉
The acoustic waves that leaves the speaker is multidimensional while the amp output is two dimensional. The speaker is a complex decoder while the amp is a transmission link. Now I'm sure this sounds like anal nitpicking but really it's important IMO to be clear about the difference.
Andre,
about the last part. I don't think it's right to say that this or that driver is more influenced by mass and resonance. All drivers has it and you deal with the parameters depending on what the goal is. Sweeping generalisations like that doesn't fit engineering IMO.
It isn't correct IMO to say that a more efficient driver react closer to the audiosignal.. that's a very imprecise statement. It's a balancing act where parameters are tailored for a desired respons.
"True to the source" and "hiding flaws".. what do you mean by this?
/Peter
Pan said:Naa, you'r both wrong! 😉
The acoustic waves that leaves the speaker is multidimensional while the amp output is two dimensional. The speaker is a complex decoder while the amp is a transmission link. Now I'm sure this sounds like anal nitpicking but really it's important IMO to be clear about the difference.
For sure you can't compare the function of the two but also they must work as a unit to get the best of both.
Andre,
about the last part. I don't think it's right to say that this or that driver is more influenced by mass and resonance. All drivers has it and you deal with the parameters depending on what the goal is. Sweeping generalisations like that doesn't fit engineering IMO.
It isn't correct IMO to say that a more efficient driver react closer to the audiosignal.. that's a very imprecise statement. It's a balancing act where parameters are tailored for a desired respons.
"True to the source" and "hiding flaws".. what do you mean by this?
/Peter
Sorry Peter, my idea wasn't to make generalizations, merely to show that speakers can be designed with different goals in mind.
Perhaps "efficient" wasn't the correct term, I was talking about drivers with a larger "more efficient" magnet systems and low moving mass that should be able to follow the audio signal more accurately.
According to me, by using a lower efficiency magnet system will result in a speaker that are relatively more influenced by it's own momentum and box resonances, relatively less by the audio signal itself, therfore can hide some recording flaws perhaps even soften the effect of clipping.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning.
Higher sensitivity (strong magnet/motor with a low moving mass and loose suspension) only means higher spl for a given input*, it does not guarante a better "replica" of the signal from the amp. You need to break down and analyse bandwith, harmonic distortion and so on.
*And this is only for the higher register. If you increase the motor strength and/or lower the moving mass you change the Q of the system so that even though the midrange becomes stronger (higher spl for a given input) the area around the system resonance will have less output as compared to the same driver with slightly less motor strength and/or higher moving mass.
But now we are OT here! 🙂
/Peter
*And this is only for the higher register. If you increase the motor strength and/or lower the moving mass you change the Q of the system so that even though the midrange becomes stronger (higher spl for a given input) the area around the system resonance will have less output as compared to the same driver with slightly less motor strength and/or higher moving mass.
But now we are OT here! 🙂
/Peter
In re-reading my earlier post, I can imagine that many find it quite unbelievable that what they hear (or see, or feel) is not how it it. You really are sure that what you strain to hear comes from outside and is exactly 1:1 reality. So, if someone like me comes along and says: "that's an error of judgement of truly heroic proportions" it doesn't sound convincing.
OTOH I cannot begin to talk about all the myriad experiments and research that supports it, and that is part of a totally other world than audio. So, in the case that somebody happens to be interested, I can recommend some books as an introduction to this subject. May be an interesting change from audio once in a while 😉 .
A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives - Cordelia Fine
Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking - Thomas E Kida
Happy reading!
Jan Didden
OTOH I cannot begin to talk about all the myriad experiments and research that supports it, and that is part of a totally other world than audio. So, in the case that somebody happens to be interested, I can recommend some books as an introduction to this subject. May be an interesting change from audio once in a while 😉 .
A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives - Cordelia Fine
Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking - Thomas E Kida
Happy reading!
Jan Didden
Though there is rational thread with this thread we see that having been warned about sniping a slight shift to argument by authority has been accomplished along with the continuation of the occasional non sequitur. I suggest we act more like gentlemen and just use pistols at 10 paces – or get this guy to moderate.
Attachments
abzug said:
Unfortunately, those that really need to read it would take Mr Curl's comments over those of professional psychologists 🙄
And at the end of all the discussions and explanations, I still hear the same, no matter how stupid or clever the mind can be. So go and enjoy the music and forget about all this ****.
Well, for the last 30+ years or so I have been hearing those arguments of golden ears against meter readers (which I know is a gross simplification, but you know what I mean. I hope). In my opinion, if you think about it rationally, it becomes quite clear that it is not just a matter of 'bad ears' or 'delusion' or whatever. It's not likely to be true that 50% of the audiophiles are deluded, as the other 50% thinks. There must be more behind it.
Being curious I tried to find that 'behind it'. The two books I mentioned above will really open your eyes on that. But there is quite a threshold against getting into that, because you must be prepared to adjust your world- and selfview.
I also think that many successfull sales people, snake oil salesmen and con artists use those same concepts, quite possibly unconciously. There's so much more to discover about yourself!
Jan Didden
Being curious I tried to find that 'behind it'. The two books I mentioned above will really open your eyes on that. But there is quite a threshold against getting into that, because you must be prepared to adjust your world- and selfview.
I also think that many successfull sales people, snake oil salesmen and con artists use those same concepts, quite possibly unconciously. There's so much more to discover about yourself!
Jan Didden
Pan said:Higher sensitivity (strong magnet/motor with a low moving mass and loose suspension) only means higher spl for a given input*, it does not guarante a better "replica" of the signal from the amp. You need to break down and analyse bandwith, harmonic distortion and so on.
I agree it is a simplified view but surely a strong motor with low moving mass will give you better transient response. I've tested the effect with two "identical" drivers only the magnet size differ and found the one with the bigger magnet giving me more midrange detail (not talking about SPL) and perhaps less perceived bass as you also mention.
*And this is only for the higher register. If you increase the motor strength and/or lower the moving mass you change the Q of the system so that even though the midrange becomes stronger (higher spl for a given input) the area around the system resonance will have less output as compared to the same driver with slightly less motor strength and/or higher moving mass.
But now we are OT here! 🙂
/Peter
The system resonance part that you mention, isn't that where the input signal has less effect and the momentum / box resonance have more?
Perhaps not OT if this can explain why there are different perceptions about audibility.
Andre,
Transient response are mainly about frequency response.
What you experienced was an altered frequency response.
Well I wouldn't not say that one has more effect than the other. In my mind (which doesn't say much though 🙂 ) that's not the right way to look at it.
/Peter
I agree it is a simplified view but surely a strong motor with low moving mass will give you better transient response. I've tested the effect with two "identical" drivers only the magnet size differ and found the one with the bigger magnet giving me more midrange detail (not talking about SPL) and perhaps less perceived bass as you also mention.
Transient response are mainly about frequency response.
What you experienced was an altered frequency response.
The system resonance part that you mention, isn't that where the input signal has less effect and the momentum / box resonance have more?
Well I wouldn't not say that one has more effect than the other. In my mind (which doesn't say much though 🙂 ) that's not the right way to look at it.
/Peter
janneman said:It's not likely to be true that 50% of the audiophiles are deluded, as the other 50% thinks. There must be more behind it.
Though there may be "more behind" it I do not find your argument convincing. Consider the number of major religions, the number of highly intelligent people in each who are convinced that there's is the truth. At most only one subset can be correct even if for the wrong "reasons". The rest are, in some sense, deluded.
Back to the objective world, only the scientific method adequately separates the wheat from the chaff when dealing with assertions about objective reality and this is what we are about here. It cannot simultaneously be true that all/some can discern differences and no one can discern differences.
Anyone who suggests this is a superposition of states will immediatly be feed to the Cthulhu
janneman said:Well, for the last 30+ years or so I have been hearing those arguments of golden ears against meter readers (which I know is a gross simplification, but you know what I mean. I hope). In my opinion, if you think about it rationally, it becomes quite clear that it is not just a matter of 'bad ears' or 'delusion' or whatever. It's not likely to be true that 50% of the audiophiles are deluded, as the other 50% thinks. There must be more behind it.
Being curious I tried to find that 'behind it'. The two books I mentioned above will really open your eyes on that. But there is quite a threshold against getting into that, because you must be prepared to adjust your world- and selfview.
I also think that many successfull sales people, snake oil salesmen and con artists use those same concepts, quite possibly unconciously. There's so much more to discover about yourself!
Jan Didden
Jan I will surely read those.
I also accept that some hear differences and some not, I don't think it's fair for one group to call the other names. I don't think I have "golden ears" but it took lots of listening and experimenting to learn what to listen for, before realising how sensitive your ears / mind can be. (I believe it to be a training process and if one are not interested nothing will be learned)
I also think that in some instances the equipment itself can hide differences.
But in the end, I can't see the reason for all the controversy, all that really matter is to enjoy the music, whatever it take to make you happy. Obviously there will be different opinions, not everybody like the same cars. In fact live would be boring if everybody experience everything the same.
Sort of but not quite, because the ear does time-domain analysis as well as frequency domain, and for example large fast transients affect perception of sound immediately past the transients. Stereo transient timings and other effects suggest some sensitivity to phenomena that in the frequency domain are past 20 kHz; there was stuff posted a couple of years ago on this forum from what I remember. The you read stuff like this that makes you wonder what else is missing: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3795Pan said:Transient response are mainly about frequency response.
Pan said:Well I wouldn't not say that one has more effect than the other. In my mind (which doesn't say much though 🙂 ) that's not the right way to look at it.
/Peter
Sorry Peter, sometimes I have stupid ways of seeing things 😀
eStatic said:Though there may be "more behind" it I do not find your argument convincing. Consider the number of major religions, the number of highly intelligent people in each who are convinced that there's is the truth. At most only one subset can be correct even if for the wrong "reasons". The rest are, in some sense, deluded.
Perhaps it's human nature to divide into different camps even though if you look at the big picture there are not that much of a difference.
Andre Visser said:
Sorry Peter, sometimes I have stupid ways of seeing things 😀
I'm so glad that I'm not alone! 🙂
/Peter
Tribalism. We're neurologically hard-wired for it.Andre Visser said:Perhaps it's human nature to divide into different camps even though if you look at the big picture there are not that much of a difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Amplifiers
- Solid State
- Do all audio amplifiers really sound the same???