Yes, I just reached into the analogy hat......let’s try some measurements that relates to the ‘sound’ of the amp or dac, I suppose the first hurdle would be admitting there are differences in the first place.
To some yes......why must the people that are happy with a Tercel hate on someone who wants to be a little more impressed?
The point is: (Contrary to common beliefs) most amplifiers are NOT good enough. Too obvious if i had to compare my amps side by side with one of those. My most transparent amp is so unique and different in its ability to show what is in the recording. When it is good it sounds wonderful, when it is bad it sounds horrible.
Most solid state amps don't have the ability to show sufficient details such as room ambience. While the theory I mentioned before suggests that there could be TOO MUCH sound information (diffuse sound) in a recording that we don't want to hear. Transparent amp just show you this 'mistake' such that it is not always nice to listen to.
By comparing my (so far) favorite amp with my 'reference' (the super transparent one) I know when my favorite amp with its own mistake masks the sound such that good recording sounds slightly worse and bad recordings sound acceptable.
Measure well in term of what??? THD 1 kHz? THD 20 kHz? IMD 100+300 Hz? How about THD+N? And Dan knows there are many kinds of noise hehe. I think it will be interesting to find out if there is a possibility to move the 1 kHz measurement norm to something close to 3.5 kHz...?
Perceived 'distortion' is not only THD. That's why high THD amps (and speakers) can be perceived as distortion-less while low THD amps can be perceived as distorted.
Measure well within the ‘accepted’ industry measurements.
I assume your getting at the same point I am there needs to be some better way to get across the finer details (in measurement) to people such as myself who want better performance and only have the tabloids for reference.
It’s like some Illuminati secret!
I am here to represent the general public😀
I assume your getting at the same point I am there needs to be some better way to get across the finer details (in measurement) to people such as myself who want better performance and only have the tabloids for reference.
It’s like some Illuminati secret!
I am here to represent the general public😀
I believe I can do it if I had too (It means I have to have some kind of financial compensation). But for the moment I don't want to invest in expensive tools. LTspice combined with my ears (plus understanding of the Physics) are all I need. The 'numbers' are simulated, ears will help to 'compensate' for models inaccuracy.
Well you know as well as I do there are differences to be heard but apparently can’t be measured therefore do not exist!
Ears work for me also.
Ears work for me also.
Hi Johnego, that last bit is a concern in my books, a good amp should not ever get nasty no matter what it is fed.
Again a transparent amp should just reproduce this high ambience information and not draw attention to it. Agreed that most amps don't quite have the detail that they should.
So what do you regard as bad recording ?. I have lot's of recordings with EQ or noise or distortion issues but none of them are bad sound, they just have faults. To my ear bad sound is a circular saw or clanging aluminium etc. A good system should be able to reproduce those sounds and never turn a faulty recording into sounds of circular saw or clanging aluminium etc. I have heard too many systems that are described as being 'transparent' and whilst being flat FR and low distortions have a subtle or not subtle subjective 'up tilt' that makes the sound subjectively 'brighter and more detailed'. This 'false detail' is useful to brighten an EQ faulted recording but when presented with 'TOO MUCH sound information' such an amplifier becomes chaotic and harsh. So, IME a good amp/system just presents everything without embellishments, be wary of false detail in the sound.,
Dan.
In present time everyone can measure whatever he want and know , such as THD, THD+N, , IMD, CCIF, multitone, spectra content (individual harmonics amplitude and phase), noise and PSU residual background (S+N, SINAD), measurements with noise signal(with cut-of part of exciting noise spectra ), sweeps in frequency and amplitude (power), stability with complex load, phase response, DF, SR... SUM of all this measurements give us very precise insight about amp quality. Not one isolated measurement, one number..Software tools for such measurements are often free available (not so experience, skills and knowledges..) and for comparative results is good soundcard more than adequate.
Last edited:
So if everything is quantifiable then why is there such discord when it comes to describing a sonic character?
Example; amp A sounds sluggish and a bit dull.....what do we relate that to? Slew rate? Some sort of transient response?
I suppose what I’m getting at if someone were to relate which measurements relate to which sound characteristics it would at least make for a decent read.
Taking it a step further; which internal component changes can mold these characteristics......I suppose that would be getting into the ‘trade secret’ realm?
Example; amp A sounds sluggish and a bit dull.....what do we relate that to? Slew rate? Some sort of transient response?
I suppose what I’m getting at if someone were to relate which measurements relate to which sound characteristics it would at least make for a decent read.
Taking it a step further; which internal component changes can mold these characteristics......I suppose that would be getting into the ‘trade secret’ realm?
Last edited:
I know. That's why I challenged Evenharmonics with my question to express his opinion on this issue. If you don't know, you can't explain it, because you don't know. I think ScottJ is also in your side, thinking that if the system is 'perfect' then everything will sound good. Well, masking is like that. That's one of a few reasons why my favorite amp is not my reference amp. At least with Youtube (HD) as sound sources. With better source, may be my reference amp will become my favorite. (But there are other quality aspects beside transparency)
No. There's no sound of clanging aluminium and the like in bad recordings that I know of. Such sound is the result of badly designed amplifiers. Absolutely.
Aha you have astutely spotted the problem at the core of the domestic audio market and why the current argument has raged for decades. It is not in certain peoples interests for there to be harmony, otherwise they can't sell their 'magic'.
It muddies the waters when someone speaks of THD. We don't know whether he is criticising THD and saying that he prefers a different measure of nonlinear distortion (for example, a weighted measure), or saying that any measure of nonlinear distortion is measuring the wrong thing.johnego said:
It is known that a small amount of distortion is not always recognised as such, but heard as a louder sound. It is also known that people prefer a louder sound. Hence it is not too surprising if people sometimes prefer a small amount of distortion to a lesser amount of distortion. This does not mean, as is sometimes claimed, that low distortion amps have some other unspecified unknown distortions which can be removed by increasing the level of known distortions.
Don't confuse "can't be measured" with 'not currently being commonly measured'. Also be aware that minor frequency response variations can easily heard and easily measured but are often ignored.mountainman bob said:
I think you misunderstand me, I am saying that 'faulty' recordings are presented as faulty recordings and not made worse by an amplifier that is commonly described as transparent. I have heard amps reviewed as 'transparent' that were dependent on the source sound and caused exaggerated high end and false sense of detail. To me transparent is clean, low noise and no odd dynamics characteristics and no false detail. Now, this is a fine point of 'voicing' and component types in addition to physical design will influence this transparency quality. This voicing is a fine line between 'polite' sound and 'exaggerated' sound with the correct balance point delivering sound that is never 'wrong' and recordings are presented as they are. The reactive 'transparent' amplifier you describe worsens suspect recordings and increases the divide to optimal recordings and in so doing loses preference in longer term listening.
Dan.
Sluggish could mean anything - maybe frequency response? Dull could mean just very low distortion, or a really level frequency response. Be aware that in most cases you are comparing amp A with whatever you usually use, so an amp with flat treble might sound dull if your usual amp has a treble rise.mountainman bob said:
I have heard horrible sounds in a live acoustic concert. Some instruments just sound horrible. Genuine hi-fi will reproduce this horribleness; poor audio may smooth it over.johnego said:
Yes.Max Headroom said:
Last edited:
BV has stated that amp character cannot be predicted by 'one number' measurement.
There is no such simple tweak unfortunately. Well, if you want to increase H2, that's an easy thing to do. Well, there is usually an easy tweak, but full spice circuit simulation is required (and ears, because simulation is not accurate, with spice you just need to know the 'ballpark'). This is related with compensation.
Do you already have the best speakers? If it uses passive crossover, then you don't have the best. It's time to work on active crossover.
In sighted and level unmatched listening session, right? I've noticed such difference too in that type of comparison.
What about input and output signal comparison? You know, something other than opinion.
How we measure is based on certain scientific principles and the technology we have at our disposal. How we hear is much more complicated and varies from person to person, particularly so in terms of signal processing performed by the brain (most of which happens outside of conscious awareness). Correlating measurements with perceptual experiences in brains can get quite complicated. Although we have some basic understanding for some aspects of the correlation, it is far from complete. Some description of one attempt to change/improve how we correlate measurements to perception can be found at: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/THD_.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.