Superbly appropriate for Conlon Nancarrow. Bill will approve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFz2lCEkjFk
I can only imagine what scores I'd have if I was old enough to be an adult when they were released! These days I pretty much pay the going rate only.
When the Harvard Coop dumped LP's they put the entire boxed Sheffield's collection out at $1 (unopened). I picked up that RCA/JVC 45 of Beethoven in a $1 bin but used somewhere else along with a few more of those 45's from the series.
the top means the best performance as judged by the industry.... Mark Levinson, Audio Research, Accuphase, Stax, SME, Pass Labs, Sennheiser, sometimes Sony's best effort, Meridian, and others (eg JC) consistently in a top class A or A+ rating throughout the many years.
All these successfully include listening into their design and build effort. And, I might add, when you look at the construction and build and BOM lists, the same part names start to emerge as well as topologies on these top brands.
THx-RNMarsh
.
Last edited:
The topologies of amplifiers in this list cover the entire gamut to the point that one might conclude measured performance and the topology itself are meaningless. Certainly with Pass Labs the THD hobby horse must be dismounted.
Benchmark could be on the list (I own their DAC and ADC). They do seem to listen as well as have great design. Just haven't been around long enough to say their work passes the test of time, as well, remaining top dog. Lets see if Brino's class D is around as long as the others mentioned and not sure they have been ranked in top percentile by majority of magazines and consumersc. I am using a class D (?) amp now and it sounds very good but I wouldn't use it for the most critical listening eval.
If we look at amps in a group of SS or Tube and any other same type cat., etc.... the top SS and top tube seems a lot more similar in circuitry in their respective topologies they settled on. And, I still keep build as part of the design... layout, parts and so forth.
It would appear that in order get on top and stay on top for decades you need more than just a design put out there and listening has been a part of their ferreting process.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The pursuit of unobtanium PPB (as opposed to mere million) levels of THD are in direct contradiction to Pass Labs' well regarded amplifiers, which have rather modest THD values.
Another way of saying, good luck taking any sort of meaning out of X vs Y amplifier in terms of specs. Sighted listening is the common denominator, which just leaves one saying "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..." as far as any actionable information.
Do you mean that a very experienced mastering engineer couldn't reliably tell you if he heard a difference between a Pass Labs amplifier and a Benchmark amplifier? Say, differences in audible distortion, and/or differences in audibility of subtle details in recorded music?
Last edited:
I don't think my response to this inquiry of some sort of exception based on an argument from authority has changed.
If you want a direct answer: until he/she could demonstrate that very talent of noticing subtle differences with appropriate controls in place, no, I don't think he or she could. His/her opinion would be heresay, as is mine and yours. I like my rigor rigorous and my data repeatable. If you have this kind of data, I'm all ears (or eyes, for that matter).
If you have a problem with this viewpoint, I don't really know what to tell you.
Heresay: https://www.google.com/webhp?source..._enUS735US735&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=heresay
One thing that seems odd about your position is you say, "I don't think he or she could." You seem to be quite confident about that.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of talent, but rather some kind of learned skill. For example, some people know what undithered 16/44 sounds like and can recognize it when it is played on a reproduction system of sufficient quality, and my understanding is there exists research in support of that ability in some people. If you accept such research, why would it seem so far-fetched for some people to know what some kinds of distortion sounds like down at similar levels? At least it seems like being 100% certain nobody could do it may amount to a type of overconfidence bias in the mind of the opinion holder. In fact, scientists aren't supposed to ever be fully confident in their opinions, rather they should form provisional estimates of probability based on what information is available, knowing that new information may come in later, or else they should withhold judgement. Would you disagree with that?
To answer your question, when I first came here, people who claimed to hear some low level details of sound were treated very badly. They were ganged up upon in order to shut them up. Now, I don't know the whole history of what happened before then, but things seem much more civil in that regard now. Hopefully, it can stay that way.
One of the issues at that time had to do with "sighted listening," which appeared to be a term used in a pejorative fashion. It was as though anyone who claimed to hear something about the sound of an amplifier while knowing which amplifier it was, was often treated essentially as a liar, or crazy.
Like Daniel, I would also like to see some research, and perhaps Ed Simon will have some new information for us before too long. But in the meantime, I think the term "sighted listening" should be used care, and with the understanding that it may eventually turn out that some people, perhaps such as some of the best of trained mastering engineers, can be at least statistically likely to hear some small differences between amplifiers with some reliability despite doing so "sighted." Talking as though such an outcome is not possible, or highly unlikely, is probably unwise. The same for assumptions and implications that if anyone actually has such an ability, it must be so rare, each individual who could do it should be individually certified.
In addition, I think talent and skill are two different things. There may be some talented people who can hear small differences, but there are probably more who have been trained and developed some skill for it. To say or suggest it is primarily a matter of talent is likely an error, IMHO.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.