Thanks mark I’ll read that tonight when I have time to absorb it better.
Now i’m off to the regularly scheduled chores of my kingdom (honeydew list)!
Now i’m off to the regularly scheduled chores of my kingdom (honeydew list)!
Of course an amplified music performance may use poor quality amplifiers too. But that's not a 'standard' of good recording practice. In a performance, often there is introduction. If the voice of this man clearly shows strong room reverberation then no need to continue listening.
I like two songs from Metallica (Nothing else matters, and Enter sandman). But i rarely listen to the Metallica concert recording. I prefer studio versions. Below is a link to my youtube reference of 'Nothing else matters'. This performance is unique. It will show two quality aspects that is often in trade off:
YouTube
Because that is the most difficult part when it comes to multidimensional perceptual evaluation. Assumed, that one is interested to examine the objectivity of the subjective evaluation for a population. First step would be to clearly define the question/hypothesis to examinem then work out the specific test routine to address that question in the best possible way. Next, find a sufficient number of listeners while trying to meet the criterion of randomness (wrt selection of listeners) sufficiently.
Next step would be to train any listeners in general and for the specific test conditions, second step would be to agree on a set of describing attributes. The precise meaning of these attributes must be known to all listeners, sound examples for each attribute must be available as reference to use if some listeners are in disagreement about the sonic description.
Then do a series of listening tests (including replications) to minimize the impact of "unreal" results. Then do the analysis of the data, use not only one, but several methods to look at/analyze the data.
Next step would be, assumed that a sufficiently thorough set of measurements of the DUTs was done (from the recent discussion you might have gotten correctly the impression that there is some dissence about this "thorough measurement" and its possibility), trying to map the (hopefully) existing perceptual differences to the (hopefully) existent measured differences.
This way you'll (hopefully) get a new set of hypothesis that should find corrobation in the results of a new round of listening tests.
All in all, looks like an easy task, doesn't it? 🙂
Last edited:
Well people are trying. It may have flaws but approaches like soundwheels AES Headphone Technology Conference: How Researchers Go About Making the Subjective Experience Objectively Meaningful | InnerFidelity could start to close the gap, but no one wants to even try them on here.
Of course; they tried in the past and are still trying.
But mountainman Bob was asking about "why" and I hoped, my short explanation could help to understand "why" ......🙂
Btw, as said before, the linked "Tech document" is a good introduction if one want's to know more (maybe after reading my short description).
Last edited:
So once all the noise/distortions are gone there are only dynamics, spatialization, transparency, and freq. response. And mostly freq. response. I would agree, and if people realize and stick to these discriptors than it would be a lot easier to communicate.
I know the answers to Bob's questions, but there are 'things' that I don't want to discuss. The only thing that makes me capable of designing better amps than the many electronics experts here is because I have good ears so I have the better chance to relate sound perceptions with 'numbers'. I prefer to make it stay that way (who knows I can materialize this knowledge some day).
If you think that my transparent amp I was talking about is like that, then, I didn't misunderstand you (or anything). You did.
I know exactly what happens with those amps you are talking about. My transparent amp is much CLEANER than my favorite amp (as of today).
So what is transparency? I have told Bob, about what contribute to 'emotion', using TV as analogy. First is RESOLUTION second is tone ACCURACY. (There is the third, but is not hifi). The 'transparency' in your example is 'resolution'. High resolution but without accuracy.
If you want to know what is meant by 'resolution' here, try designing with video transistors! (A1538 is 400 MHz at 5 mA, compare with A1381 which is only 100 MHz). Since JLH or may be Williamson there has been expert opinion saying that for an amp to sound good enough it must be 'wide bandwidth'. To some extent this is still true today. But there are consequences if you 'open' your amplifier to the 'influence' of ultra HF. If you don't know how to combat the issues, stay away!
That's why some people are so happy with MJ15004. My advice, to get the wide bandwidth benefit but minus the issues, try output transistors around 20 MHz. This is rare, mind you. All the popular transistors are faster than this, and that's why most sound like crap, because people don't understand what the problem is. Oh, BTW, my reference amp, the most transparent amp uses output transistor with fT = 90 MHz (at 1A) but it is free of clanging aluminium sound! (or 'hard' sound).
I agree completely - good replay systems make listening enjoyable, no matter what the recording because there's no harshness, grating distortion - recording flaws are reproduced naturally, not with added distortion.
False detail has become a bigger problem since digital audio was introduced as people assumed it was part of the new 'realism' that the 'perfection' of digital was now revealing rather than a distortion.
If active crossovers ever became popular in the high range, I could see the discussion changing to "what's the best amplifier for this frequency range?" and "what's the best amp for the midrange in such-and-such speaker?" So "the best speakers" tends to imply "the best passive-crossover speakers."
I've read other comments that active speakers are not popular in the high end because such audiophiles like to mix-and-match their amps and speakers.
No doubt here are plenty of good active monitors for studio use, but of course the problem for hifi use is these speakers are too transparent.
Well, the examples you posted a while back did *not* show even the slightest difference with vs. without ferrite, the difference residual was nothing than pure uncorrelated random noise, exactly what physics suggests: A ferrite on a reasonable quality coaxial cable has *zero* effect on the signal itself (which is differential mode), it attenuates only common mode RF signals.
+1
A really good reproduction system allows to recognize the weaknesses/flaws of a recording but does not exaggerate these so the reproduction still can evoke an impression of realism.
Although that had an impact, a different taste in interior design was imo an important variable too.
Rooms of our ancients were often smaller, thick carpets on the floor, curtains and (maybe) additional drapes were used, heavy upholstered furniture and bookshelves even filled with books, overall more a tendency to be overdamped than to lively.
@ benb,
surprisingly (or maybe not so) it seems that a lot of people, working in the recording industry/facilities, preferred for home use other speakers than professional monitors. Surely design (WAF ? ) played a role, but different demand profiles as well.
Monitors for work usage might have an advantage in getting a job faster done, while not per se providing the best sound for "casual/normal" listening at home.
Why should I care about the best speakers, as long as it is already within 'threshold'. Before designing amps, I design speakers. I thought that is the most important chain of audio system. But after I understand amplifiers, my paradigm changes. It is easy to design proper speaker with subjectively cheap materials. Proper is more important than part quality. But amps? The subjective electrical difference is very small (if ever audible) but what do you feel if your amp produces harsh clanging aluminium?? With speakers we know how to address such issues, but with amps?? Can you see how and why I can have different paradigm now?
And once you get a good amp, you will be surprise that most issues you think is the speaker's problem become disappeared.
Oh, do I have the best speakers in the world? It's too subjective, I don't want to say what I think.
Yes, except that I'm confident with my ears. I choose my best prototype with ears. Once one of the prototype is so good I don't dare to touch it. My current favorite amp is to some extent more enjoyable than my reference. But i can still hear a slight clanging aluminium sound, but it is not serious. But it is not like the reference amp which does 'not' make mistakes. I want to improve it of course, but not touching it. I create a new board and copy that amp then improve it. This way, the best amp today may become the worst one tomorrow.
What about input and output signal comparison? You know, something other than opinion.
Don't worry, I will do more than that if I ever want to convince my customers
😀
Yep, natural is natural - even electric guitar distortion should be reproduced as natural i.e the way we would hear this distortion live - we notice if this isn't so
yea, good point & it surely played a part
I just thought that the change in paradigm (analog to digital audio) left people unsure what to expect from the new format & the marketing hype fooled/confused many for quiet a while ( I still believe that confusion exists).
I imagine (but have no research to prove it) that people using analog systems & who changed their decor to more reflective surfaces noticed any new brightness/liveliness in their systems as just that - a change to more reflective /reverberant room.
Last edited:
Here is a (Mark Knoppler) live recording that I cannot stand listening with my transparent amplifier:
YouTube
I listened to some of it on laptop through just simple h/phones - seems to be a fair bit of sibilance in the recording (Knopfler's voice) but isn't Youtube using compressed lossy audio?
Agreed, a lot of issues with the upstream electronics gets blamed on speakers
I remember someone once said (I paraphrase from memory) - good upstream electronics (they may have said amp but I extend it further) + reasonable speakers is better sounding than reasonable upstream electronics + good speakers
That's the funniest thing I have read since Dan claimed night and day differences between two bit identical digital files.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.