Paying more doesn't mean it's any better
Exactly - the speakers, and what you expect from the recording is far more important.
I remember the old rule that said we need to keep at least a 10X factor margin for our loads.
About what said J.C. about feedback evils, I just wanted to add a remark to my questions to him. The output of a GNFB amp is an input for the feedback. And speaker's cables an antenna. I noticed a clear improvement when I tried, long time ago, to shield my cables and speakers. Since this time, I do-it systematically.
It's more interesting than insulators in Lamas dresses, silver plated conductors and lifter cables ;-)
Don´t want to be contentious too, but we should agree that there exists a hard to explain differende in the approach to "audibility".
A response, that mimicks yours, to your last sentence could be:
"I see not protocols or detailed repeatable process laid out to verify any claim of non-audibility" .
It seems to be sort of double standards and as using knock out arguments; similar to the recently expressed inability/unwillingness to explain which kind of (the demanded) "proof" (i.e. evidence) would be acceptable.
As a result it seems to make it much harder convincing people to provide more in addition to anecdotal reports.
Surely, that should be:
"I see not protocols or detailed repeatable process laid out to verify any claim of audibility"
What a Great Show! | Stereophile.com I think the photo sums up many people's view of high end audio!
. Worked for me in the 21st Century.
Near all the people I know, involved to music recording and reproduction (gear design), try to find valuables technical explanations to the things that they "feel".
The first thing to do is to make sure a "feeling" is not an illusion. My personal way is to eliminate everything that is not "obvious" and reproductible to my ears. When i have to concentrate too much on any difference, repeat comparisons hundred times, at various levels, or do a "next room" listening I give-it up.
Long period listening after a change can help. it is not good and no fun to be too concentrated on the technical listening.
No need to any blind test as long as you are not hunting phantoms.
The second thing is to try to find an explanation, avoiding as much "analogy" as you can. But, indeed, it is not always possible, our knowledge is limited.
The last thing is to try to figure out if any 'trick' works on different systems, or is limited to a precise configuration. And try to figure out why.
So I have some bias that I take for granted for myself and let the others free to find and prefer their owns.
My last recommendation should be to keep an open minded attitude. If somebody claim something that seems both 'reasonable' and interesting: I try by myself. I have learned a lot of things this way. And if it is not working with my personal configuration, I do not take definitive conclusions, we don't tune carburetors and injectors the same way.
Of course, measurements are the only irrefutable way to figure out if any difference or improvements. But I keep for granted that measurements results do not tell so much about our listening experiences. Bad measurement results will sound bad, good ones does not necessary imply a system will sound so good.
And remember, a system is an addition (or substractions) of the defects of all the individual parts that compose-it.
Last edited:
I was referring to the -116dB on that graph, there was no footnote to a study that established that.
The opportunity to power on your oscilloscope to answer your own question.
Looking at the input of the power stage of your amps, as an example.
Last edited:
Somewhat of an irrelevant distraction though, how he got that figure, - the important point was the clean spectrum and -130dB....
No point, there is almost no RF where I live 🙂
Does that mean you measured a difference?
Last edited:
Living in an other galaxy ?
You are free to "believe" what you want. That just make-you a believer.
Why would you "believe" me ?
Last edited:
Apologies, I sometimes forget you are basically an internet troll.
Good luck with getting a straight answer out of JC too
Demian,
The 30 dBa noise floor is a broadband measurement. As music can be as simple as a single tone with harmonics, it can be detected some 20 dB below the noise floor. Critical bands of hearing etc. make that possible.
The damage threshold is often cited as 130 to 140 dBa. Some younger folks can detect certain frequencies of sine waves as low as -10 dBa. So while 120 dB of range is fine for most humans the range really can safely go to 140 dB.
The practice of being an order of magnitude better to avoid any possibility of error would leave one with a 160 dB dynamic range goal. Actually needs to be more if you allow for component sensitivity mismatches.
Now if anyone ever reaches that.....
Had a baseball field where the guy maintaining it decided the audio power amplifier gain set switches could fail, so he soldered jumpers on all of them. The choices were a gain of 26 dB, maximum output at 0 dBm or at 0 VU. I of course use the gain of 26 dB which means the setting switch is open. He set all the switches to clipping at 0 dBm. For some funny reason everything sounded horrible. Wonder why that would happen? Maybe because the amplifiers ranged in power from 75 watts to 600 watts per channel to match the drivers they powered. (Idiot!)
The 30 dBa noise floor is a broadband measurement. As music can be as simple as a single tone with harmonics, it can be detected some 20 dB below the noise floor. Critical bands of hearing etc. make that possible.
The damage threshold is often cited as 130 to 140 dBa. Some younger folks can detect certain frequencies of sine waves as low as -10 dBa. So while 120 dB of range is fine for most humans the range really can safely go to 140 dB.
The practice of being an order of magnitude better to avoid any possibility of error would leave one with a 160 dB dynamic range goal. Actually needs to be more if you allow for component sensitivity mismatches.
Now if anyone ever reaches that.....
Had a baseball field where the guy maintaining it decided the audio power amplifier gain set switches could fail, so he soldered jumpers on all of them. The choices were a gain of 26 dB, maximum output at 0 dBm or at 0 VU. I of course use the gain of 26 dB which means the setting switch is open. He set all the switches to clipping at 0 dBm. For some funny reason everything sounded horrible. Wonder why that would happen? Maybe because the amplifiers ranged in power from 75 watts to 600 watts per channel to match the drivers they powered. (Idiot!)
.
The reader will appreciate your elegance and the quality of your argument.
Short of argument, insults.
Welcome back in my ignore list, I have no pleasure in exchanging with someone who never gives anything but spits endlessly on what others offer. If ever, by a miracle, you publish something new, useful and interesting, which would change pleasantly from your usual agressions and indictments, no doubt that someone will resume it in quotation.
Good luck with your witch hunt.
Monsieur, je vous salue bien bas.
Last edited:
Wales, similar thing in some places. 😛
Edit: for anyone who remembers 'the prisoner'. He's just down the road from there. Lucky *********.
Last edited:
Disharmonious and unmutual forever. The Unmutual Website - The Prisoner Patrick McGoohan Portmeirion Home Page
Thx... but i didnt mean to limit the question to HPA. Any audio product. It ought to be the norm by this point in time that all are of such modern high quality design by all the well know brands of moderate costs. Rather they are few and far between or build it yourself. Just stating its a sad state of affairs. yeah. They lost their mojo for sure.
BTW the 99 dollar HPA was measured at 300 Ohms. NFG.
-RNM
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.