Corvus corax said:
That's clearly a contradiction. You claim your job is to question your own observations and those of others, and yet you say "I know what I can hear". If that is so, you're not doing your job.
Amplifiers do sound different - hell, I can say tha t categorically because I HEARD IT. Many times.
The problem, gentlemen is we do not know exactly wha t makes them sound different, all other things being equal.
Some people have developed a view and a body of practical knowledge that aids and steers them in the creation of their products - many examples in this forum e.g. topolology, layout, component selection etc.
Other individuals come at this from a heavily engineering perspective and the viewpoint that, if it measures well, that's a good starting point.
Both are perfectly rational, understandable positions.
Where the tw0 communities go off the rails is when one or the other claim that the oppopsites approach is flawed, and therefore th e end product is fatally flawed (notice how these discussions always quickly become polarized with extreme views on both sides). Well, like I've said before on this forum, there are many great sounding amps with feedback and there are many great sounding amps without feedback, to quote but one example.
So, attacking each others starting viewpoint when in the majority of cases the end result is a 'fine' sounding amplifer is just pointless.
Audio Audio Audio
Subjectivist >>>>> Rationalist <<<<<<<< Objectivist
There should be a sensible rationalist position to all of this!
The problem, gentlemen is we do not know exactly wha t makes them sound different, all other things being equal.
Some people have developed a view and a body of practical knowledge that aids and steers them in the creation of their products - many examples in this forum e.g. topolology, layout, component selection etc.
Other individuals come at this from a heavily engineering perspective and the viewpoint that, if it measures well, that's a good starting point.
Both are perfectly rational, understandable positions.
Where the tw0 communities go off the rails is when one or the other claim that the oppopsites approach is flawed, and therefore th e end product is fatally flawed (notice how these discussions always quickly become polarized with extreme views on both sides). Well, like I've said before on this forum, there are many great sounding amps with feedback and there are many great sounding amps without feedback, to quote but one example.
So, attacking each others starting viewpoint when in the majority of cases the end result is a 'fine' sounding amplifer is just pointless.
Audio Audio Audio
Subjectivist >>>>> Rationalist <<<<<<<< Objectivist
There should be a sensible rationalist position to all of this!
One other point.
'Sound' is a very subjective thing.
somelike it tight clean (most likely solid state with f/back)
some like it looser and airer (most likely tubes or ZGFB)
Take your pick
'Sound' is a very subjective thing.
somelike it tight clean (most likely solid state with f/back)
some like it looser and airer (most likely tubes or ZGFB)
Take your pick
are three pages of off topic "listening and hearing" discussion what we really need to build a better pre-amp?
Yes, well said. I do not know why some would suspect us to add "nicely sounding" distortion. Nonsense.
PMA said:
suspect US This plural again Mind you, nobody said you are adding on purpose "nice sounding" distortion. I should probably add self victimizing to the big picture.
But regarding measurements, the common attitude follows a certain pattern:
1. Avoid as much as possible talking about measurements.
2. When talking about measurements, always mention how unimportant for a good sound and deceptive they can be.
3. When some measurements have to be displayed, show either simulations results or irrelevant data.
4. Correlating measurements with subjective/listening results is always somebody's else job.
5. Never disclose the entire measurement setup, this will make measurements dangerously reproducible.
I think it's time to move on.
In a sense, yes. To build a "better" preamp, one has to decide the definition of "better." For me, a preamp that switches sources, raises/lowers the volume, and does nothing else is the definition of "better." In my mind, if I can't hear the difference between the preamp being in and out of the circuit, it cannot be made "better."
Others seem to want the preamp to do something marvelous and mystical. Nelson Pass would say that they want their preamp to provide entertainment. I think that's what the fuss is about.
Let me state it a different way, Andy, one that wont have any inferred meanings for you: My job is to take the same circuit we've used for the last 20 years, and changing none or few of the values present, and make it sound correct through trial and error. That is how we voice our products. Every time the artist comes up with a different box, the circuit that worked well the last time will refuse to give good sound. Its my job to figure out why. Seldom does a new creation sound the way we want it to. Its my job to fix it. Whether that means moving a component out of an e- field present in the equipment, or manipulating the ground buss noise levels to balance out internal noise by changing the size of a conductor, what we do is less science than it is art. Some of the effects I deal with a very hard to correlate with measurements, most are obvious.
I suppose the fact that 90 percent of my work is done sitting in front of a distortion analyzer and watching the results is lost. Funny, though, how I can't seem to get that fella to show me the results of changing a piece of wire, yet the results are clearly audible to the man in charge and myself, even though he has no idea what I've done to change the sound…
Enough of this. I have actual work to do. CES shipping deadline approaching.
I suppose the fact that 90 percent of my work is done sitting in front of a distortion analyzer and watching the results is lost. Funny, though, how I can't seem to get that fella to show me the results of changing a piece of wire, yet the results are clearly audible to the man in charge and myself, even though he has no idea what I've done to change the sound…
Enough of this. I have actual work to do. CES shipping deadline approaching.
I'd rethink that design. It's not hard to do one that doesn't rocket into the stratosphere with the slightest provocation.
I see the two groups somewhat differently.
For the first group, if the equipment measures well, it's a good starting point, a necessary point..
For the second group, once the equipment measures well – end of story, the product is finished.
The point is that different amplifiers that measure very close, sound different.
So, the first group, after attaining good measurements, will work on attaining good sound.
The second group will stop at the good measurements point.
I believe that many audiophiles are after good sound, not only good measurements. At least my friends and me are after good sound – we pick up our audio gear by the way it sounds, not by the way it measures.
As long as it's a verbal debate here on the forum, it doesn't matter much.
However, it does matter for high end audio gear manufacturers.
As for the DIY community – those who don't hear differences will be satisfied with well measuring gear. Those who do hear differences will strive for good sounding gear.
JPV said:
Call it whatever you may.
What matters is the end result – how a manufacturer may produce a good sounding audio gear. Now, from the testimony of designers and manufacturers of great sounding audio gear, there is art that follows science. I don't see how great sounding audio gear may be produced by science alone.
Yet, there are people who name what they don't understand "black magic".
PMA said:
Easily measurable, we are up to 10-11GHz parasitic oscillations missed by using 3GHz equipment to measure 1GHz amplifiers. This is a perfect example where good solid engineering can give some clues. I can certainly point to at least one occasion where two cables sounded different because one caused a 50MHz oscillation on peaks. At least one listener chose to ignore this fact saying that it couldn't matter.
I built a line stage once that sounded absolutely fine, but turned out to be oscillating at 100MHz. I'll bet some interconnect/power amp combinations might have sounded different with it but measured perfect by themselves.
We are getting way out-of-line here, but let me add some more.
This week I again spoke to Dick Sequerra. He is the client that I made the so called $1 amp for. I have also designed $10,000 amps for him, the size of a small refrigerator.
I have used designs of his that go back to the 1950's.
First is the Telefunken Bajazzo portable radio (germanium) It sounds GREAT! I have owned 4-5 of them over the last 43 years. Some have been stolen from me, and I had to replace them.
Makes normal table model radios sound like a joke.
Second is the Marantz 10 FM tuner from the early '60's. Easily the finest FM tuner I have ever heard in my life. It is absolutely stock, and could stand modding, but I haven't bothered as yet.
Third it the Sequerra MET-7 speakers. For such small speakers, they rival almost anything their size at any price.
Four, while I don't own them personally, I fondly remember the sound of the Sequerra ribbon tweeters, that actually fooled me into thinking that he was demoing with a live violinist (you can't fool me, I was married to one), at a show.
Five, the best vacuum tube power amp I have ever heard, the $100,000 set made with JC Morrison.
What a track record!
Still, when we talked, he asked me what was going on? I said that I was debating on this website with some hear no difference people, and also Scott Wurcer.
He asked me what I could disagree with Scott about. I mentioned mountains of feedback, the scientific method, etc. You see, he doesn't 'level' with Scott in their conversations, because it just isn't important enough to make waves. BUT when Dick and I talk, it is about advanced physics, quadrature FM distortion and the human ear, etc, etc.
Dick actually uses Scott's AD797 op amp OPEN LOOP for a phono stage! Why?
This week I again spoke to Dick Sequerra. He is the client that I made the so called $1 amp for. I have also designed $10,000 amps for him, the size of a small refrigerator.
I have used designs of his that go back to the 1950's.
First is the Telefunken Bajazzo portable radio (germanium) It sounds GREAT! I have owned 4-5 of them over the last 43 years. Some have been stolen from me, and I had to replace them.
Makes normal table model radios sound like a joke.
Second is the Marantz 10 FM tuner from the early '60's. Easily the finest FM tuner I have ever heard in my life. It is absolutely stock, and could stand modding, but I haven't bothered as yet.
Third it the Sequerra MET-7 speakers. For such small speakers, they rival almost anything their size at any price.
Four, while I don't own them personally, I fondly remember the sound of the Sequerra ribbon tweeters, that actually fooled me into thinking that he was demoing with a live violinist (you can't fool me, I was married to one), at a show.
Five, the best vacuum tube power amp I have ever heard, the $100,000 set made with JC Morrison.
What a track record!
Still, when we talked, he asked me what was going on? I said that I was debating on this website with some hear no difference people, and also Scott Wurcer.
He asked me what I could disagree with Scott about. I mentioned mountains of feedback, the scientific method, etc. You see, he doesn't 'level' with Scott in their conversations, because it just isn't important enough to make waves. BUT when Dick and I talk, it is about advanced physics, quadrature FM distortion and the human ear, etc, etc.
Dick actually uses Scott's AD797 op amp OPEN LOOP for a phono stage! Why?
john curl said:
I aimed to please. I have tried to hide hooks for doing these sorts of things in several amplifiers. I got away with it in the wild west days of the IC industry, but that's over now. No need anymore really.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.