Johnloudb said:
I'll check out your links. I have permanent tinnitis in my right ear due to about two ounces of a friends home brew mercury fulminate deciding that drying under a tensor lamp was reason to increase its entropy dramatically.
GRollins said:
Well Grey, given your understanding of feedback and feedback amp design you just demonstrated, I think it's a good idea to stay away from it.
Any competent engineer can expand here, although I am not sure you are ready to get a free on topic lesson. If you feel like though, just ask for...
Not trying to get your goat at all, John. Even if I can't hear the difference between an Adcom and a Levinson, someone else demonstrating that they can is good enough for me. Again, I congratulate you for putting your beliefs to the test- it s what separates you from the armchair guru-wannabes.
I assume you'd want to do it with your speakers, just to have that midrange impedance dip torture test?
I assume you'd want to do it with your speakers, just to have that midrange impedance dip torture test?
SY, I am a guru! Never forget that. Now please don't try to trap me into a 'hear no difference' situation. I am NOT into ABX or short term evaluation. I like to use MY and my associates sources and resources to evaluate equipment. Not some hear-no-difference MP-3 or CD. I would not even necessarily use myself as the prime listener. Actually Audiowolf or Karen Richardson, former 'Absolute Sound Reviewer' Vendetta Research partner, who was my 'significant other' for 11 years, and is now president of Audiophile Systems, would be my first choices. Remember the ICK 150? Karen told me that first.
However, what I do believe is:
IF you can make one component sound just like another over time and quality listening, then we 'golden ears' can pack up our tents and start to just listen to music. If we get bored with what we have, we should just dial up the 'microequalizer' to get another version of quality, (or not) sound reproduction. This would be a 'boon' to audiophiles and I can enjoy my retirement.
However, what I do believe is:
IF you can make one component sound just like another over time and quality listening, then we 'golden ears' can pack up our tents and start to just listen to music. If we get bored with what we have, we should just dial up the 'microequalizer' to get another version of quality, (or not) sound reproduction. This would be a 'boon' to audiophiles and I can enjoy my retirement.
Audiowolf is welcome, next BA? I doubt it, if any outcome is possible they run away. It never ceases to amaze me, one good clean event to prove your assertions and we would have to stop.
It is amazing to me. Karen is in Indiana and Audio Wolf is in Oregon. Would you pay them to visit BA in Boston? Besides, I doubt that you, Scott, could round up the audio equipment necessary for a real test. I 'might' have the right equipment, but my system is NOT up to any serious audiophile standard, just like if someone (like me) who owned an 'out of tune' sports car, would be a bad bet in an auto race, even if the sports car was first class.
syn08 said:
GE is working on the next generation of CAT scanners, I wonder if there will be any audio design "trickle down".
Make the micro-equalizer, like I asked for in the first place, and THEN we will have something to work with. If not, then the question is pointless.
So let me get this straight- your ears and system are good enough to distinguish two kinds of metal in wires but not good enough to tell a cheap Adcom from an expensive Levinson? I've heard your system, it's quite good. I should think that this would be an easy one for you, night and day.
No microequalizer needed, they both would have low source impedance.
No microequalizer needed, they both would have low source impedance.
john curl said:
The BA is in SF. If I offered air fare in return for participation at SY's conditions they would refuse. I only mention SY because he is better versed in setting up valid tests than I am.
scott wurcer said:
You might want to read what Geddes says on his website?
I am pretty sure I read it, and he refers to 0.001% distortion amplifiers and higher distortion amplifiers in specific.
The relationships are NOT a function of absolute level, but a function of SPECTRA! according to Dr. Geddes. At least as far as I am able to understand.
You experience with SE amps is rather irrelevant to what I wrote about. And yes, you can make almost any type of amplifier have colorations, good and bad ones. The point I made was not about colorations in SE amps.
_-_-bear
OK, SY you win. I won't do the test. I hope that you don't need something from me in the near future, because I don't need this.
Amps, amps, amps...
I'm in for one of these tests...
and I can get to NYC or Boston from here. Was in Boston last week actually.
but seriously folks, it might be very difficult to tell the difference between an Adcom 555 and Levinson. To be utterly blunt I have never yet heard (oh, sorry, exclude the ML-2) a Levinson that I liked, and I certainly do not like the Adcom 555. So telling them apart would be attempting to discern which ratty sound was ratty exactly how and in what way. Just my blunt opinion.
Krell, Bratislav? I could tell you how Krell rose to cult status, but that would have to be in a private conversation...but the main thing that created appeal was the big front panels, the big handles, and the ability to drive very low Z loads, which at the time was special.
Again, quite bluntly, I never heard a Krell in the KSA series that I really liked much. The best of that series was the biggest "class A" version(s), can't quite recall the nomanclature at the moment. But to me they always had some sort of annoying thing going on in the highs, and a wierdness in the bass.
Only recently, actually here in DiyAudio, do I find out that the Krells of their "famous" cult gathering period were actually clones of the Bryston amplfiers, just with bigger supplies, and more outputs & heatsinks. Which oddly enough may be why I have never heard a Bryston nor a Krell of that vintage that I could stand to listen to for very long.
Otoh all of the above mentioned companies sold a boatload of product...
My 2 cents worth, nothing scientific about it. Just one person's frank opinion.
_-_-bear
I'm in for one of these tests...
and I can get to NYC or Boston from here. Was in Boston last week actually.
but seriously folks, it might be very difficult to tell the difference between an Adcom 555 and Levinson. To be utterly blunt I have never yet heard (oh, sorry, exclude the ML-2) a Levinson that I liked, and I certainly do not like the Adcom 555. So telling them apart would be attempting to discern which ratty sound was ratty exactly how and in what way. Just my blunt opinion.
Krell, Bratislav? I could tell you how Krell rose to cult status, but that would have to be in a private conversation...but the main thing that created appeal was the big front panels, the big handles, and the ability to drive very low Z loads, which at the time was special.
Again, quite bluntly, I never heard a Krell in the KSA series that I really liked much. The best of that series was the biggest "class A" version(s), can't quite recall the nomanclature at the moment. But to me they always had some sort of annoying thing going on in the highs, and a wierdness in the bass.
Only recently, actually here in DiyAudio, do I find out that the Krells of their "famous" cult gathering period were actually clones of the Bryston amplfiers, just with bigger supplies, and more outputs & heatsinks. Which oddly enough may be why I have never heard a Bryston nor a Krell of that vintage that I could stand to listen to for very long.
Otoh all of the above mentioned companies sold a boatload of product...
My 2 cents worth, nothing scientific about it. Just one person's frank opinion.
_-_-bear
John, you offered to do it, I offered to help set it up. If you don't want to do it, fine. But understand that I am always willing to help you set up a controlled listening test where you can make subjective judgments without your conscious or unconscious biases getting in the way.
I'm sorry that you've taken this the wrong way. You've been incredibly helpful and supportive in the past and I've always thought of you as a friend.
I'm sorry that you've taken this the wrong way. You've been incredibly helpful and supportive in the past and I've always thought of you as a friend.
Bear has made one of the finest power amplifiers in the world. How do I know? I lived with it at CES for a year or two, before I could get my act together with Bob Crump, and made something better than a stock 3500. I still remember its sound quality.
Personally, I don't think that much of Krell or later Levinson, either, so I would have the same problem. However, I would not say that they sound exactly the same. That MIGHT be where a micro-equalizer might be useful. Who knows, until someone tries.
Personally, I don't think that much of Krell or later Levinson, either, so I would have the same problem. However, I would not say that they sound exactly the same. That MIGHT be where a micro-equalizer might be useful. Who knows, until someone tries.
bear said:
Earl's distortion criterion has nothing, zilch, nada to do with distortion spectra directly. He imposes distortion digitally via a static nonlinear function. That is, if the input word is x and the output word is y, the nonlinear transfer characteristic is y = g(x), where g(x) is some nonlinear function. The Gedlee metric involves a mathematical operation on g(x). It has nothing to do with the spectrum of the resulting distortion (except in a very indirect way), only with the relationship of y to x.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.