Bernhard said:
This is a bad analogy IMHO. Taking a photo is better compared
with recording a concert. It is about capturing a piece of reality
onto some kind of recording medium (tape, film, memory). Since
no recording/photographic equipment and media can fully capture
the reality, trade-offs and artistic decisions must be made.
The reproduction of recordings (and the sound of amplifiers etc.)
is better compared to reproducing a photo. If you print a photo
in a book, show it with a projector, view it on the computer
screen, you will probably prefer a reproduction that is as true
as possible to what is recorded in the photo, not alter the colours,
add softness etc. (Of, course there are cases where photos are
manipulated for artistic or other reasons after being taken, but
then, that is perhaps best compared to remastering or something
like that).
I agree Charles.
I think progress can be made by coming up with ideas to solve the old problem (either more clever use of exisiting technology or application of new technology). Progress can also be made by better defining the "old problem".
I think audio is an area where the problem itself has much potential to be better defined. This is why people can't always correlate "old problem" measurements with sound quality. THD is one of these old measurements. Once the problem that needs to be solved is understood better then it will be relatively easy to invent new ways to measure it and new circuits to deal with it.
It is important to maintain a conviction that everything can be understood and measured. Else there is a tendency to "invent" excuses for observations or even to deny the observations.
traderbam said:
I can agree to the above and also to Charles'view of this, but there is one overriding problem. We really don't know what we need to built to get closer to what we want. We are groping around in the dark trying to hit gold. It's alright saying that THD is not the right benchmark, but what is? If we can define the target, I bet it'll be done within a year. The reason we keep on searching for decades now is not because we don't have (collectively) the expertise or funding or whatever, it's just because we have no clue what it is we want (in engineering terms as well as in sound reproduction terms).
Jan Didden
One thing that has not being mentioned anywhere that I have seen when we discuss the sound of amps is that when we attend a live concert, lets say an acoustic concert, some people prefer to sit very close to the stage and others prefer to sit some way away. Some might prefer to be on the rostrom !
This is simply a matter of preference not right or wrong.
The different amounts of air in the concert room between the stage and the different listening postions will modify the perceived sound.
More intense and detailed at the front and smoother and softer further back
Now might it be that some of the 'nicer' sounding amps somehow mimic the that extra few meters of air that some people like.
So it is not wrong to design or enjoy a more romantic sounding amp. It is just a matter of personal preference
It would be nice it we could collectively take this idea on board rather than thinking that there some kind of absolute amplifier that will push all the buttons for everyone.
mike
This is simply a matter of preference not right or wrong.
The different amounts of air in the concert room between the stage and the different listening postions will modify the perceived sound.
More intense and detailed at the front and smoother and softer further back
Now might it be that some of the 'nicer' sounding amps somehow mimic the that extra few meters of air that some people like.
So it is not wrong to design or enjoy a more romantic sounding amp. It is just a matter of personal preference
It would be nice it we could collectively take this idea on board rather than thinking that there some kind of absolute amplifier that will push all the buttons for everyone.
mike
traderbam said:
Yes, and please note the part of my sentence that you didin't
quote, that this manipulation is best compared to remastering
and similar, and not to the reproduction of a recording at home.
That is, it is done by somebody who supposedly has the authority
and expertise to make these manipulations. A remastering engineer
at a recording company, a photo editor at a newspaper etc.
Christer said:
And that was the semantic contribution to the thread "Feedback artifacts, cars and semantics"!
Should'nt we talk a bit about Volvos also, former Swedish car brand belongs nowdays to an American brand, should please both sweeds and Americans, or..
Ok, back to the topic that probably interest us at most.
I have followed this thread more in the background... but speaking about CL or OL amplifiers, I wonder wether an CL could be more sutiable for complex philharmonic music where just solo perfomance with an acoustic guitar would be suited better to be reproduced with a OL amplifier...?
I actually got very inspired the last two weeks depending on the very intersting threads lately on this board, that much I had to dig up my old DIY tube amplifier to listen to it and I can't say more the how relaxed the soundstage and crisp clear reproducing of some instrumentals is.
My crappy SS receiver can't compare with it, the bass is "tighter" and so on but something is missing, The sound is more harsch, isn't harshness or "sheem" as somebody else maybe woud call it something depending on TIM?
I tried to bring up TIM when everybody talked about THD but with no respons, I I am pretty shure that there are several other types of measuring techniques to use, and somehow I see a lack of fantasy how it should be done.
Theres always the typical THD and IM with 19//20 kHz or so.
Why not using for instance 19//20 kHz AND 21,020 or 17,980 kHz!
Why those two later figures, well many amplifiers give frequency product of 18 and 21 with the 19//20 kHz test and using a third tone with just (for instance) 20Hz difference from the IM tones of 18 and 21 kHz perhaps could reveal amplifiers maybe even more, if the plot shows up a "grany" pattern this could verry well be an answer to harshness revealed with a measuring technique inspired with new ideas how to reveal the amplifier.
Finaly I just want to say that i do NOT exactely know what the above describing technique would come up with but something new in measuring technics is needed to reveal amplifiers "sound capability" and not just great figure capabilities.
The "old common way" of measuring Amplifiers are somewhat obsolete.
Cheers!
AKSA said:
Sorry, Hugh. I don't think I misunderstood what you were saying so much as just using the words of one of your posts as an example. (I wouldn't presume that I could infer your design philosophy nor the actual sound of your amps from that single post!
)As traderbam noted after your post, there is a "camp" of people that now largely use musical terms (tempo, emotion, timing, etc.) to refer to the performance of audio gear. In the past there has been a tendency to describe the sound itself (soundstaging, tonal balance, midrange liquidity, resolution, etc.) and simply assume that there would be a correlation with the music itself.
But I think that this approach has limitations in the same way that assuming measurements will correlate with musical qualities has limitations. For example, one time I was listening to a prototype amplifier that had good bass, good treble, good resolution, etc., but for some reason made highly accomplished musical groups sound like they needed to rehearse more because they weren't quite playing together. Just as I have heard many amps that measure wonderfully but leave me feeling no connection to the music at all.
(Please note that I am *not* saying that all amps that have good measurements or good "sound" qualities will necessarily have bad "musical" qualities.)
So as traderbam pointed out in another post, we can make our best progress when we define the problem best. Janneman concurred, saying that we could solve the problem quickly once we had defined it. The tricky part is to define the problem. I don't have any real answers here except to say that applying new distinctions (musical ones in this case) can help us better grasp existing problems. Even if the answers must be found via trial-and-error, at least there some (slow) progress being made.
Jan, Charles,
I think it just Great that we don’t a formula which allows us to create a straight wire with gain. If we did, wouldn’t that just take all the fun out of it. I like the differences in the way that amps reproduce sound. I get tried of listening to the my system sounds so switch it around, sometimes I listen to my Krell and other times I listen to my 6550 tube amps. I enjoy the sound of both amps and I like the fact that they both sound different. The detail or a big fat image, there are both great. Having said that all the options have in this industry makes it more fun.
With the differences in fine amps maybe we have surpassed the sound of a wire gain. So if we had that wire with gain, wouldn’t we all be rushing to make it sound different. To me it Seems that most of us don’t want our system to sound like the next guy’s, I don’t I want it to be better. Anyway, I know no there no utopia in sound, photography hardware design, cars ect. and their there always a trade off even in apples. If there weren’t we would all get bored.
I think it just Great that we don’t a formula which allows us to create a straight wire with gain. If we did, wouldn’t that just take all the fun out of it. I like the differences in the way that amps reproduce sound. I get tried of listening to the my system sounds so switch it around, sometimes I listen to my Krell and other times I listen to my 6550 tube amps. I enjoy the sound of both amps and I like the fact that they both sound different. The detail or a big fat image, there are both great. Having said that all the options have in this industry makes it more fun.
With the differences in fine amps maybe we have surpassed the sound of a wire gain. So if we had that wire with gain, wouldn’t we all be rushing to make it sound different. To me it Seems that most of us don’t want our system to sound like the next guy’s, I don’t I want it to be better. Anyway, I know no there no utopia in sound, photography hardware design, cars ect. and their there always a trade off even in apples. If there weren’t we would all get bored.
jewilson said:
Yeah, I agree I guess. But you see, with for instance cars, even if there are many different models for many different tastes, we generally know what we want from the next generation: better mileage, easier handling, more comfortable ride, more accelaration ect. The tradeoffs determine the car's 'character' if you want. But, importantly, generally the engineers know in which direction to work to get more mileage, or better handling etc.
With amps, we don't even know which way to work to get better imaging, better resolution, etc. Somebody makes a lucky hit, but the next amp may be worse in the same respect. If you look at amps of 10 or 15 years ago, did we make any significant progress? I doubt it. If you look at cars 10 or 15 years old, did we make any significant progress? You bet! Why? We have at least some idea where to look for solutions. Not so in amps.
Jan Didden
traderbam said:
Hi traderbam
my post was not intended for anyone in particular it just happened to fall after yours.
I wish we had a control that could "move" the mics further away from the instruments / performers so we could heard the acoustic aswell. Even though they are not perfect I love those 1950's big band recordings .... even the studio recordings sound live.
And I do not mean electronic reverb !!!....
cheers
mike
This thread is seminal. It has reached a turning point, where consensus is forming that amps (and indeed sources, and speakers) should be assessed according to two criteria; the objective, based essentially on specifications we all understand, and the subjective, concentrating on specific elements such as bass extension, sound stage/imaging, clarity, and the more indefinable but crucial aspects generally referred to as 'musicality'.
On this last measure, I often think of phrases like 'does it make you weep' (often playing the second movement of Brahms Violin Concerto), does your foot tap spontaneously (on jazz/popular music), and do you keep silent while listening with friends....... These things betoke 'involvement' which really should be the holy grail, and something SET amps do well.
Jan talks of the auto analogy. I believe I agree emphatically; amp design sometimes does it, sometimes misses it, and often with successive models. Reason: the engineers by and large do not know the parameters which control 'musicality' - clearly they cannot be measured - and so the design becomes an artform of sorts, raised to legendary status by designers such as Hiraga, Sakuma, Komuro, etc.
I agree with Traderbam; an amp is needed which combines objective and subjective qualities, makes our foot tap, gives us a smile on Patricia Barber, carries us away with Dvorak's Romance for Violin.
Charles wrote this:
I see this as progress, and applaud it. There is now recognition that an amp is more than its specs, and concession must be made to 'how it sounds', even if expressed in vague, arty, non-engineering terms. It's been obvious for some time to those that sell amplifiers that the savvy consumers are not impressed with good specs and want something more. I see this a convergence amongst consumers, Stuart's word, a clear indication the discerning are looking beyond objectivism.
Great comment, Mikelm, about moving mikes further from the performer. It would make a huge difference in spatiality in modern recordings, and improve sound stage hugely.
Interesting analogies with digital v. film photography. There's certainly art in photography, no question. Why not in amp design?
Cheers,
Hugh
On this last measure, I often think of phrases like 'does it make you weep' (often playing the second movement of Brahms Violin Concerto), does your foot tap spontaneously (on jazz/popular music), and do you keep silent while listening with friends....... These things betoke 'involvement' which really should be the holy grail, and something SET amps do well.
Jan talks of the auto analogy. I believe I agree emphatically; amp design sometimes does it, sometimes misses it, and often with successive models. Reason: the engineers by and large do not know the parameters which control 'musicality' - clearly they cannot be measured - and so the design becomes an artform of sorts, raised to legendary status by designers such as Hiraga, Sakuma, Komuro, etc.
I agree with Traderbam; an amp is needed which combines objective and subjective qualities, makes our foot tap, gives us a smile on Patricia Barber, carries us away with Dvorak's Romance for Violin.
Charles wrote this:
I see this as progress, and applaud it. There is now recognition that an amp is more than its specs, and concession must be made to 'how it sounds', even if expressed in vague, arty, non-engineering terms. It's been obvious for some time to those that sell amplifiers that the savvy consumers are not impressed with good specs and want something more. I see this a convergence amongst consumers, Stuart's word, a clear indication the discerning are looking beyond objectivism.
Great comment, Mikelm, about moving mikes further from the performer. It would make a huge difference in spatiality in modern recordings, and improve sound stage hugely.
Interesting analogies with digital v. film photography. There's certainly art in photography, no question. Why not in amp design?
Cheers,
Hugh
Two points:
--Someone said earlier that you should choose an amplifer based on whether you want to be on the stage, in the first row, 8th row...etc.
I disagree. This amounts to using the amplifier as a tone control. The problem that arises is that you will find recordings that were recorded in the performers' laps, from the first row, and from the 8th row. On playback with an "8th row amplifer" you would find that the close-mic recording sounds about the the way you wanted. Okay, so far, so good. But what about the first row and 8th row recordings?
Oops...not so good.
The optimal system will give you what was on the recording. If that doesn't suit, blame the recording, not your system.
Which leads me to my next point...
--Some people assume blindly that good specifications mean good sound. Hell, I used to be such a critter, myself.
I got over it.
The problem is that we run into descriptive difficulties. For instance, one of the most common terms used to describe an amplifier with .00001% distortion is that it's "accurate." This presumtive use of the word places an unfair burden on people who would like to use that word to define an amplifier that sounds more like music, not one that has screechy upper-mids that sound nothing whatsoever like real music. It's a clever ploy, really--if you say that you don't want an "accurate" amplifer, then you're immediately branded as someone who wants an "inaccurate" amplifer, right?
Not so.
What is needed is a common set of terms that describe the sound of music, whether in the concert hall or the listening room. Rhythm is a great musical term, but a little vague in the stereo context. Imaging is a wonderful descriptor for stereo, but doesn't always translate well into the concert hall. Part of the problem is that many people aren't careful listeners. Oh, they'll tell you they are, but that doesn't mean it's true. They tend to muddy the waters by using the wrong words to describe the wrong things (e.g. "accurate").
It might be interesting to make up a list of words--with definitions--so that there would be common ground for all parties.
Grey
P.S.: Oh, and while we're at it, we might as well unravel the Gordian Knot, just for fun.
--Someone said earlier that you should choose an amplifer based on whether you want to be on the stage, in the first row, 8th row...etc.
I disagree. This amounts to using the amplifier as a tone control. The problem that arises is that you will find recordings that were recorded in the performers' laps, from the first row, and from the 8th row. On playback with an "8th row amplifer" you would find that the close-mic recording sounds about the the way you wanted. Okay, so far, so good. But what about the first row and 8th row recordings?
Oops...not so good.
The optimal system will give you what was on the recording. If that doesn't suit, blame the recording, not your system.
Which leads me to my next point...
--Some people assume blindly that good specifications mean good sound. Hell, I used to be such a critter, myself.
I got over it.
The problem is that we run into descriptive difficulties. For instance, one of the most common terms used to describe an amplifier with .00001% distortion is that it's "accurate." This presumtive use of the word places an unfair burden on people who would like to use that word to define an amplifier that sounds more like music, not one that has screechy upper-mids that sound nothing whatsoever like real music. It's a clever ploy, really--if you say that you don't want an "accurate" amplifer, then you're immediately branded as someone who wants an "inaccurate" amplifer, right?
Not so.
What is needed is a common set of terms that describe the sound of music, whether in the concert hall or the listening room. Rhythm is a great musical term, but a little vague in the stereo context. Imaging is a wonderful descriptor for stereo, but doesn't always translate well into the concert hall. Part of the problem is that many people aren't careful listeners. Oh, they'll tell you they are, but that doesn't mean it's true. They tend to muddy the waters by using the wrong words to describe the wrong things (e.g. "accurate").
It might be interesting to make up a list of words--with definitions--so that there would be common ground for all parties.
Grey
P.S.: Oh, and while we're at it, we might as well unravel the Gordian Knot, just for fun.
mikelm said:
Hi traderbam
my post was not intended for anyone in particular it just happened to fall after yours.
I wish we had a control that could "move" the mics further away from the instruments / performers so we could heard the acoustic aswell. Even though they are not perfect I love those 1950's big band recordings .... even the studio recordings sound live.
And I do not mean electronic reverb !!!....
cheers
mike
A lot of 50's / 60's recordings used analog plate reverbs. You can
really hear it in a big way in some of the old Motown stuff.
Definately not a concert hall type of sound but quite distinctive,
easy to pick once you know the sound, I love them when used
appropriately.
Cheers,
Terry
Hugh, I agree with you on this. I referenced measurements of two power amps that I have been associated with on this thread, the 3500 (350W) and the JC-1 (400W). If you look at these measurements closely, it is difficult, if not impossible to predict the actual audio quality from the measurements. They are virtually the same, except for somewhat higher power output in the JC-1, BUT then it costs almost 3 times as much as well. These amps, with almost the same schematic, DON'T sound the same. I believe this comes from better layout and parts selection, not the basic design. I wish that I could find a way to measure why. Incidently, earlier models, not as sophisticated in design, actually sounded better than the HCA-3500. This is where success can skip model generations.
Hi John, all,
have anybody tried to use another type of distortion measuring technic than the common THD and two tone IM measuring in an attempt to try finding a revealing distorsion measuring technic that tells little bit more what kind of sound qualities could be expected?
Or have you tried something similar as I described in my former post in this thread?
Some claim non feedback amplifiers having lower TIM at least...?
Regards,
Michael
have anybody tried to use another type of distortion measuring technic than the common THD and two tone IM measuring in an attempt to try finding a revealing distorsion measuring technic that tells little bit more what kind of sound qualities could be expected?
Or have you tried something similar as I described in my former post in this thread?
Some claim non feedback amplifiers having lower TIM at least...?
Regards,
Michael
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.