Pity about my typing don't ya think.
Anyway, I think we made our point.
Besides this subject is such can of worms any con artist can come along and argue a case for their "own end" in the hope of winning over the audiophile who is in search of that mysterious illusion .....nirvana..
I think we are very lucky that we have some like Nelson Pass who has given us the opportunity to share the joy of making and building an elegantly simple amplifier that performs very well.
Why is it that one who has not only the depth, but also the breadth of talent and experience who succeeds over the self proclaimed expert who relies on the resources of multi-nationals to market the design!
...building and listening is believing...the ears have it.
Ian
Anyway, I think we made our point.
Besides this subject is such can of worms any con artist can come along and argue a case for their "own end" in the hope of winning over the audiophile who is in search of that mysterious illusion .....nirvana..
I think we are very lucky that we have some like Nelson Pass who has given us the opportunity to share the joy of making and building an elegantly simple amplifier that performs very well.
Why is it that one who has not only the depth, but also the breadth of talent and experience who succeeds over the self proclaimed expert who relies on the resources of multi-nationals to market the design!
...building and listening is believing...the ears have it.
Ian
Measuring stuff can be good.
rnrss,
I have to agree with one point you made. I'm not going to dig back through for an exact quote, but "selling a ford to a chev owner", and about people new to building amps being informed of ideas contrary to the general flow of this forum.
I think your previous posts read a little too argumentative, but offering up some measurements goes a long way towards credibility as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to choose sides yet, as I haven't got a lot of experience comparing different types of amps. Perhaps there's things you aren't measuring for which are as important to out perception of sound as the things you do measure.
On the other hand, there's way too much "audiophile" BS floating around here, and it makes things really difficult for those of us who are genuinely interrested in setting up a really good system. A good start would be some REAL critical thought being included in peoples listening tests.
As far as the whole freedom of opinion thing goes, that's fine with me, but do the world a favour and ask yourself if you're really just imagining things before you go and tell everyone how much better your new [add expensive fairy dust encrusted component here] made your amplifier sound.
You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but when you start suggesting things to people who don't know any better, they're going to blow their money and time on dumb **** when they could be doing something real with it.
Be real about this stuff. No more completely unquantifiable ****.
If there is something that makes low damping high impedance amps more real, we should be trying to measure it to find out what it is. If it IS there it IS measurable.
If it's all a bunch of **** and everyone just prefers listening to resonance, they're welcome to do it, but admit that's what they're doing. Don't send the beginners down the road of psychicacoustics without letting them know exactly what they're going to get.
Personally, I'm currently building a ZenV2. I'll keep you all posted. If it sounds like good, I'll say so. If I can't tell the difference I'll say that too. If it sounds like ****, I'll rip out all the good parts and build a class ab with a really really oversized heatsink.
l8rs
rnrss,
I have to agree with one point you made. I'm not going to dig back through for an exact quote, but "selling a ford to a chev owner", and about people new to building amps being informed of ideas contrary to the general flow of this forum.
I think your previous posts read a little too argumentative, but offering up some measurements goes a long way towards credibility as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to choose sides yet, as I haven't got a lot of experience comparing different types of amps. Perhaps there's things you aren't measuring for which are as important to out perception of sound as the things you do measure.
On the other hand, there's way too much "audiophile" BS floating around here, and it makes things really difficult for those of us who are genuinely interrested in setting up a really good system. A good start would be some REAL critical thought being included in peoples listening tests.
As far as the whole freedom of opinion thing goes, that's fine with me, but do the world a favour and ask yourself if you're really just imagining things before you go and tell everyone how much better your new [add expensive fairy dust encrusted component here] made your amplifier sound.
You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but when you start suggesting things to people who don't know any better, they're going to blow their money and time on dumb **** when they could be doing something real with it.
Be real about this stuff. No more completely unquantifiable ****.
If there is something that makes low damping high impedance amps more real, we should be trying to measure it to find out what it is. If it IS there it IS measurable.
If it's all a bunch of **** and everyone just prefers listening to resonance, they're welcome to do it, but admit that's what they're doing. Don't send the beginners down the road of psychicacoustics without letting them know exactly what they're going to get.
Personally, I'm currently building a ZenV2. I'll keep you all posted. If it sounds like good, I'll say so. If I can't tell the difference I'll say that too. If it sounds like ****, I'll rip out all the good parts and build a class ab with a really really oversized heatsink.
l8rs
Just a quick note on the whole damping factor issue. Anyone who says they can hear the difference between an amp with a 400 DF and a 2700 DF is deluding themselves, unless of course they have the output transistors connected directly to the speaker terminals. One look at the impedance of any speaker cable across the audio bandwidth shows that DF greater than 50 or so will have no further effect at the speaker. Once the impedance of the cable is greater than the ouput impedance of the amplifier, any larger DF becomes a moot point. Simple physics and math!
Re: Measuring stuff can be good.
When someone doesn't understand that a Harley owner can enjoy the ride as much as a high-rev Honda, that people have different ways to have fun, that the owner of an old Mustand can have as much fun as the one with a brand new Porsche...
Does everyone enjoy to ride full speed ahead?
Or are there some that just enjoy a good ride to take some free air?
Some like to be constantly fiddling with the gearbox, while others enjoy to step on the pedal and feel the torque.
Are we all equal?
Isn't it a market and tastes for all kinds of products?
Why must we just wanna aspire to have POWER on our systems?
Whe just wanna enjoy the music as pure as possible.
We should not mix other things with audio, but if what some aim is to simulate huge PA system from a hardrock band at his home, be it.
If they have fun, they are happy(er).
Just don't try to make everyone believe that this is the way to enjoy the music.
Arx said:
When someone doesn't understand that a Harley owner can enjoy the ride as much as a high-rev Honda, that people have different ways to have fun, that the owner of an old Mustand can have as much fun as the one with a brand new Porsche...
Does everyone enjoy to ride full speed ahead?
Or are there some that just enjoy a good ride to take some free air?
Some like to be constantly fiddling with the gearbox, while others enjoy to step on the pedal and feel the torque.
Are we all equal?
Isn't it a market and tastes for all kinds of products?
Why must we just wanna aspire to have POWER on our systems?
Whe just wanna enjoy the music as pure as possible.
We should not mix other things with audio, but if what some aim is to simulate huge PA system from a hardrock band at his home, be it.
If they have fun, they are happy(er).
Just don't try to make everyone believe that this is the way to enjoy the music.
Sadly, there's little point in trying to argue with someone who is obsessed with specifications. In their view, the reproduction is perfect--or as near as can be--because the numbers say it is. If there is any problem, then it is obviously not the fault of the amplifier because the numbers prove that it is perfect. Any imperfection in the reproduction is because of flaws that the amplifier "reveals" in the recording. But the amp? Never! Perish the thought! It's perfect...see, the numbers say so!
You will note the tautology, of course.
I once thought this way, myself, back when I listened to rock. It was only once I turned to classical, and later to jazz, that I started to feel that something was awry. Going to hear live classical and live jazz led me to an interesting thought experiment:
Go to a live, acoustic instrument performance. One with no PA system. Close your eyes. Listen to the music. Pretend that the music is coming from a large stereo. Now, be honest...don't you want to turn up the 'treble' on this 'stereo' just a little bit? Maybe tweak the 'bass' upwards a smidgen? Now consider the fact that you are listening to reality. Assuming that you are trying to reproduce reality, this is the way your system at home is supposed to sound. To the extent that you want to refiddle the sound to make reality sound like what you hear at home, does this not suggest the at least the possibility that your priorities are backwards?
It was this simple experiment that shattered my illusions. I sold my equalizer, my dBX, my Auto Correlator...everything. The more bandaids I applied to the sound, the worse it got. The solution was to cure the disease, not treat the symptoms.
I can't force this realization on anyone. It's something I had to come to on my own.
People blather on about how there are no mysteries, that the specs tell all, that anyone who feels otherwise is deluded into hearing what they want to hear by some sort of unspecified muzzy-wuzzy mind control exerted by a mysterious "they." The delicious irony is that the same mindset applies to them. They have been brainwashed into believing 'snake oil' arguments that specifications are everything. When you can't make a truly perfect amplifier--and no one can--then you choose one parameter and laud it to the skies, ignoring all others. This is called marketing, and it applies just as fully to low distortion specs as it does to anything else. This is what I call the "Science As Religion" approach. Blind faith that one or two specifications can fully describe the sound of an amplifier.
Fourier analysis of distortion components? Hogwash! Dynamic distortion components? Balderdash! Modulation of the circuit parameters through an insufficiently stiff power supply? Get out of here, you heathen! THD is all you need, they cry.
Douglas Self, one of the harder core members of the specs uber alles crowd, at least has the intellectual honesty to admit--albeit grudgingly--that he has been wrong about a few things. I saw in one of his books a few years ago that they had finally proven--gulp!--that absolute phase/polarity was audible. Well, hell, I knew that years ago! But the poor man couldn't admit it existed until it was proven--you could almost hear him gnashing his teeth as he wrote the words. Does that mean that the phenomenon did not exist until the paper was published acknowledging its existence? To hear some people tell it, that's the case.
Pathetic...just pathetic.
I note with some amusement that Self seems to have proven the existence of thermal distortion, but I believe I recall seeing that he believes it only applies to integrated circuits!
Go figure.
As I said, I was once a True Believer. "Science As Religion" was my philosophy, although I refused to see it in that light. The thing that I ignored was that science is always in motion, always discovering new things. To attempt to freeze science at an arbitrary point in time and say,"As of today, we know everything," is the height of arrogance. It's no more true today than it was a century ago when it was declared that physics was complete--that there was no more to be learned. This was on the eve of relativity and quantum mechanics. Needless to say, physics today looks quite a bit different than it did then.
Ignore history at your peril.
Grey
You will note the tautology, of course.
I once thought this way, myself, back when I listened to rock. It was only once I turned to classical, and later to jazz, that I started to feel that something was awry. Going to hear live classical and live jazz led me to an interesting thought experiment:
Go to a live, acoustic instrument performance. One with no PA system. Close your eyes. Listen to the music. Pretend that the music is coming from a large stereo. Now, be honest...don't you want to turn up the 'treble' on this 'stereo' just a little bit? Maybe tweak the 'bass' upwards a smidgen? Now consider the fact that you are listening to reality. Assuming that you are trying to reproduce reality, this is the way your system at home is supposed to sound. To the extent that you want to refiddle the sound to make reality sound like what you hear at home, does this not suggest the at least the possibility that your priorities are backwards?
It was this simple experiment that shattered my illusions. I sold my equalizer, my dBX, my Auto Correlator...everything. The more bandaids I applied to the sound, the worse it got. The solution was to cure the disease, not treat the symptoms.
I can't force this realization on anyone. It's something I had to come to on my own.
People blather on about how there are no mysteries, that the specs tell all, that anyone who feels otherwise is deluded into hearing what they want to hear by some sort of unspecified muzzy-wuzzy mind control exerted by a mysterious "they." The delicious irony is that the same mindset applies to them. They have been brainwashed into believing 'snake oil' arguments that specifications are everything. When you can't make a truly perfect amplifier--and no one can--then you choose one parameter and laud it to the skies, ignoring all others. This is called marketing, and it applies just as fully to low distortion specs as it does to anything else. This is what I call the "Science As Religion" approach. Blind faith that one or two specifications can fully describe the sound of an amplifier.
Fourier analysis of distortion components? Hogwash! Dynamic distortion components? Balderdash! Modulation of the circuit parameters through an insufficiently stiff power supply? Get out of here, you heathen! THD is all you need, they cry.
Douglas Self, one of the harder core members of the specs uber alles crowd, at least has the intellectual honesty to admit--albeit grudgingly--that he has been wrong about a few things. I saw in one of his books a few years ago that they had finally proven--gulp!--that absolute phase/polarity was audible. Well, hell, I knew that years ago! But the poor man couldn't admit it existed until it was proven--you could almost hear him gnashing his teeth as he wrote the words. Does that mean that the phenomenon did not exist until the paper was published acknowledging its existence? To hear some people tell it, that's the case.
Pathetic...just pathetic.
I note with some amusement that Self seems to have proven the existence of thermal distortion, but I believe I recall seeing that he believes it only applies to integrated circuits!
Go figure.
As I said, I was once a True Believer. "Science As Religion" was my philosophy, although I refused to see it in that light. The thing that I ignored was that science is always in motion, always discovering new things. To attempt to freeze science at an arbitrary point in time and say,"As of today, we know everything," is the height of arrogance. It's no more true today than it was a century ago when it was declared that physics was complete--that there was no more to be learned. This was on the eve of relativity and quantum mechanics. Needless to say, physics today looks quite a bit different than it did then.
Ignore history at your peril.
Grey
GRollins said:
I believe the same is true about arguing with someone who does not believe in specpfications.
GRollins said:
It is entirely possible that our perception of music and the reliaty contributed to the "problem".
GRollins said:
Sure. reality is NOT perfect and musicians are NOT perfect and their tastes of "reproduction" may not fit our desired "reproduction". How the musicians want the music to be heard is irrelevant to me. I want the music to be heard my way, which may or may not coincide with what the musicians have in mind. So it is perfectly conceivable and sometimes desirable to alter how music, live or not, is reproduced, if not performed.
GRollins said:
that is a pretty BIG "***-u-me" in my book.
GRollins said:
No. It suggests that you have gone from a passive listener to a proactive lister, one who has the intellect (not 100% perfect I may add) to change how music is reproduced.
GRollins said:
it isn't the fault of the tools (in this case the "bandaids") that the music wasn't right for you. It is the carpenter (in this case you) who did not apply the tools right to achieve the desired outcome.
A good carpenter blames himself, and a bad carpenter blames his tools. or so goes an old saying.
GRollins said:
if so, I believe you believed the wrong "religion". Science is all about having facts and an open mind to interpret the facts. That means admitting the possibility of, but not blindly believing in, that anything, however outlandish, could be true.
GRollins said:
I would be surprised if that was ever the concensus of the scientific community. There might have been people foolish enough to proclaim that, but then there are people foolish enough to proclaim first-cycle distortion, etc. in audio as well. You ought to take those claims with a grain of salt - not that they are definitely wrong, but they aren't proven, yet.
Some clues on the unknown here:
http://www.passlabs.com/amplifiers/xa160_reviews.htm
Hi Blues,
I am making space on the work bench so as to make space on the kitchen table for the Hot Rod Aleph
Ian
http://www.passlabs.com/amplifiers/xa160_reviews.htm
Hi Blues,
I am making space on the work bench so as to make space on the kitchen table for the Hot Rod Aleph
Ian
SY said:
"William Thomson, also known as Lord Kelvin, who had made a major contribution to the development of thermodynamics, expressed similar sentiments in a lecture to the Royal Institute in 1900."There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement," he declared, famously adding that there were "two small clouds on the horizon -- the unusual characteristics of a phenomenon known as blackbody radiation and the unexpected results of an experiment conducted by Michelson and his associate Edward Morley in 1887."
GRollins said:
Excellent.
Live, unamplified instruments sound direct, and this means that a trumpet sounds like a trumpet, even if it sometimes gets into you ears in a non-delicate way, on the agressive borderline.
It's a fantastic experience.
Why smoothen this and fool yourself?
Live drums sounds FAST and TIGHT.
Alas, good systems don't perform like a live performance just because there's too much EQ on most recordings.
DITTO.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.