One more analogy I can add: suppose, you are a child on a swing. If bearing is well lubricated it swings nice and smooth. You enjoy the ride, shifting a bit center of mass. However, you may use really bad bearing, by compensate traction by feedback that precisely mimic free movement. But is is more enjoyable? It is the question...
No, I have not. Please read my post carefully.
I am well aware of this typical audiophile confusion. That's why I wrote "how accurate the equipment sounds to me". "how accurate" is a degree of being accurate. It's also called accuracy.
I believe you've misinterpreted my post. I started out with a mention of different types of accuracy.
It wasn't me. Although, if one puts "to me" at the end of that sentence, it conveys a very different meaning.
That's a very generalized statement. Depending on what defines better, it can either be, as you put it, delusion or a compelling statement.
A lot of these arguments could disappear if people are aware of what hi-fi means. Hi-fi requires a reference to compare to. That's what my post was about, comparisons to figure out what type of gear (amp in this case) recreates sound closer to the reference for the end user's ears.
Last edited:
I don't understand your understanding of "accurate" - it seems rather too post-modern for me. For me the reference must be live, preferably acoustic, sound. Then accurate simply means, ideally, nothing added and nothing taken away. This is an unachievable goal, but it is the only goal worth approaching.
We can measure the difference between input and output. The question then is "what differences degrade the sound, and so should be reduced as far as reasonably possible?" The problem with this procedure is that in some cases it is found that smaller differences degrade the sound (as perceived by a listener) while larger differences 'improve' the sound. The obvious conclusion from this (using Occam's razor) is that some people prefer certain distortions. Some prefer to assert that larger differences are accompanied by a reduction in other unpleasant differences, so they deny the simplest explanation. In some cases this may actually be true, but it is not valid to simply assert it everywhere.
While some people deliberately add distortion (e.g. poorly designed tube buffers) and then claim an improvement in sound I think my point stands. However, I am not saying that sand with high feedback is OK and valves distort, as some do. On the contrary, I use valves myself but I try to reduce distortions before adding feedback - it has to sound OK open-loop. This means that the problems introduced by feedback are reduced. I do my best to avoid "tube sound".
This discussion will go round in circles, as similar threads always do. However, here is a thought: personally, I would prefer to get used to relatively undistorted sound rather than add some distortion to suit my own ears. For example, when designing an RIAA network I would aim for accuracy rather than a pleasant sound - some may think this is perverse, but I prefer truth to error.
We can measure the difference between input and output. The question then is "what differences degrade the sound, and so should be reduced as far as reasonably possible?" The problem with this procedure is that in some cases it is found that smaller differences degrade the sound (as perceived by a listener) while larger differences 'improve' the sound. The obvious conclusion from this (using Occam's razor) is that some people prefer certain distortions. Some prefer to assert that larger differences are accompanied by a reduction in other unpleasant differences, so they deny the simplest explanation. In some cases this may actually be true, but it is not valid to simply assert it everywhere.
While some people deliberately add distortion (e.g. poorly designed tube buffers) and then claim an improvement in sound I think my point stands. However, I am not saying that sand with high feedback is OK and valves distort, as some do. On the contrary, I use valves myself but I try to reduce distortions before adding feedback - it has to sound OK open-loop. This means that the problems introduced by feedback are reduced. I do my best to avoid "tube sound".
This discussion will go round in circles, as similar threads always do. However, here is a thought: personally, I would prefer to get used to relatively undistorted sound rather than add some distortion to suit my own ears. For example, when designing an RIAA network I would aim for accuracy rather than a pleasant sound - some may think this is perverse, but I prefer truth to error.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
In situations where accuracy is a pleasant sound I'd agree. But my priority is always a pleasant sound. For accuracy I use an off the shelf commercial amplifier with zero THD....
That doesn't make your thoughts wrong or mine right. Essentially, I'm agreeing that each of us makes our own choices... somewhere there's an amp for each of us 😀
Do you really mean that you would like Motorhead or Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin(whatever your taste may be!) to sound "pleasant"?
As I put it at the end of my reply, it's "comparisons to figure out what type of gear (amp in this case) recreates sound closer to the reference for the end user's ears." Once that's established, we can then rate the fidelity level of given equipments and perhaps be able to judge the quality of them.
Yes, but not just live acoustic sound but the performance during the recording session. Such opportunity is not commonly available to many audiophiles, unfortunately.
The word would be "transparent" or "transparency" as in the degree of being transparent. It is achievable and it's been done all the time with electronic audio components. In objective listening tests, if the listener cannot hear the difference between with a component added or without, it has achieved such goal. DAC in CD player for example, it is now typically as transparent as our ears can tell and they are used in CD players costing mere $100.
Bigun's been holding out on us! He found a zero THD amplifier and has been using it all along, while we've been struggling away scratching in the dirt trying to achieve just a little less distortion!
Yep. Like, it does not matter which abat-jour you put on the lamp behind the curtain, light will look the same. 😉
We are searching for most transparent curtains.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
So who's going to sign up for my "Bigun's zero THD amp", bidding is open, cash only, no refunds 😀
Black Sabbath for me ! (accuracy is the last thing I'd want in this case)
Black Sabbath for me ! (accuracy is the last thing I'd want in this case)
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
not really, we are looking for a nice lamp that doesn't irritate like a flourescent light bulb...
Yes, and for the lamp too! 😉
My point was, amps and speakers can hide differences between DACs behind own curtains so blindly-testing experts can't tell which player was used. Is it possible?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
At the volume level recommended for Black Sabbath, your ears will produce all the IMD you need !
Of course musicians understand overtones ('harmonics', whatever) and why instruments sound different. Some are stupid, but most are not THAT stupid😉
I took that part for granted...how easily our posts are confused/misunderstood...🙂
I had a discussion about this with my EE teacher, who happened to be a musician, and he pointed out to me that I must be careful using the term 'harmonics' to a musician b/c he mey not think of the same as me.
Ref wikipedia:
'The tight relation between overtones and harmonics in music often leads to their being used synonymously in a strictly musical context, but they are counted differently leading to some possible confusion. This chart demonstrates how they are counted'
I am not a musician, and haven't bothered to learn the musical harmonic scale since I really don't need to.
When signals that are well harmonically correlated IMD,
the resulting mess will be mostly harmonic too. Why a
guitar playing a power chord 1, 1.5, 2 across multiple
strings (and fractional overtones) can distort pleasingly...
After you mix in drums, singer, other instruments. Now
you got things that have no simple fraction correlation.
IMD splatter is no longer your friend.
Guitar and bass will each have separate MI amps that
distort, and the PA will be clean except delay effects.
the resulting mess will be mostly harmonic too. Why a
guitar playing a power chord 1, 1.5, 2 across multiple
strings (and fractional overtones) can distort pleasingly...
After you mix in drums, singer, other instruments. Now
you got things that have no simple fraction correlation.
IMD splatter is no longer your friend.
Guitar and bass will each have separate MI amps that
distort, and the PA will be clean except delay effects.
Last edited:
It depends on what you mean by "work". Most components work best when used with bias somewhere near that intended by the manufacturer. For ECC88 this means 90V on the anode, not 12V or less.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.