Perhaps you have a too cynical take on this word 'fashion',. Re-purpose, re-frame it to mean you're sensitive to customer latent demand and anticipate what customers will purchase even before they know it themselves. Tiredness evaporates then.
Plus, there's a fair bit of jealousy - you've been able to look beyond the normal measuring techniques in developing your designs, understanding that there are other issues involved, and have been commercially successful with the results - they measure well and sound good, two factors that don't always go together ...
Who said that?
What Tech oriented people say is that:
1) they are both very good, *technically* (as measured in a Lab) the first one is better than the second, BUT:
2) BOTH amp "defects" are way below the threshold of audibility.
Is this a hollow statement (such as those from Believers?)
Not at all, it has been tested in thousands of experiments since the Fifties .
That´s the point.
Worrying about inexistent or microscopic problems is a waste of time when there are others which are both real and much larger.
Pro amps from crown, qsc, lab gruppen, hell even behringer come to mind.
Enviado de meu GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk
Here´s one of thousands:
Amazon.com: Sony STR-DE185 Stereo Receiver (Discontinued by Manufacturer): Electronics
Some $80 used, probably $150/200 new.
Published specs (and I bet it exceeds them):
I´m quite certain nobody can differentiate it from one of your amps, if blind tested, and at, say, both being used at 15 or 20 W RMS levels, simply to keep them quite away from clipping.
Successful? .... I bet Sony sells 10000 time more amps than all your designs combined.
Sorry if this sounds like a cheap shot, but it´s you who introduced the "succesful" parameter in the discussion.
Which as stated earlier, goes well beyond mere "sound quality".
Sorry
This is where people in your "camp" always miss the point - every time it's brought up they dance the same dance: "brilliant distortion figures, the defects must be inaudible" - but, THD doesn't tell the full story - "of course, engineers know that good THD figures is not enough, there has to be competent engineering throughout the device - and engineers are competent, by default!" - but it still doesn't sound good ...
There is a blur of legs spinning and gyrating, they hope you don't notice this ... and never the full story comes out ...
You're probably exaggerating beyond where it is necessary to make your point.
Hooo, boy! ... I bought a Ferarri - how fast can it go? - 150 - wow, what's it like at that speed? - no idea, never go above 70; I just like the idea that it can go so fast ...
Last edited:
Probably, but no more than what "the other side" is doing, with their analogies of pasta in a bucket and beer cans touching your nose
And speaking of "success" the way it was introduced in the discussion, I guess I hit the bullseye, smack in the middle
You miss the point entirely.
The idea is that competent amps (available for decades) should be compared well within the linear behaviour zone, which given Music dynamic range is a few DB below clipping.
Now if you want to compare clippers, I can suggest quite a few effects boxes
etc.
And that's what I do. I consider an amp rated at 100W to be saying that it has audibly linear behaviour up to that 100W - otherwise, what's the use of the spec? If I wanted to be precise, I would select a track of music, determine what the maximum amplitude within that was, and then precisely adjust the gain so that the peak, transient power required for playing that track was exactly 100W. If I wanted to be "kind" to the amplifier, I would select an orchestral piece; if I wanted to be exceptionally "nasty", I would use a juicy Foo Fighter's piece, both peaking at a maximum of 100W - the latter music track would cause the majority of amplifiers to collapse into an earsplitting mess, under those conditions; only a thoroughly competent one could handle it ...
Last edited:
An incomplete or false wattage claim that neglects to mention testing methods would be something that should be considered a defect.
Thankfully, I've only come across one amplifier like that, but it also had cement blocks in it to make it appear heavy and valuable, so there's that.
Looking at this thread,
You have to ask the question..
If you can't tell the difference between HIFI components, (other than changes in media type) has there been ANY progress in audio at all (except for better components) and at what point did it stop? EEK 1955 LMAO.
Now prove it in a listening test!
I remember doing similar things in the 80's with a few friends just asking their opinion.. the interesting comment for some changes was>>it sounds a bit different but not necessarily better...just for a laugh at the time I crossed the U/L taps over on a PP amp and got an instant comment " there is a hole in the soundstage".
Imaging can be very important to some people but many are quite happy to put both speakers up a corner and use it as "mono with perhaps better resolution"..
Lets list the things "you can't hear"
Circuit topology, component type, amp type SS>>tube, PP/SE, Class D, transistor or chip, OP amp type, PSU type, the list just goes on..
PCB type, type of wire, solder type, and to top it all off DESIGN. I missed tube type and transistor type.
If its Flat and less than 2% THD...<<<I recon that's most if not ALL amps. also possibly CD players etc.. and we must add that a digital signal can't alter enough to be audible unless something's broken. That must include interconnect construction.
Regards
M. Gregg
You have to ask the question..
If you can't tell the difference between HIFI components, (other than changes in media type) has there been ANY progress in audio at all (except for better components) and at what point did it stop? EEK 1955 LMAO.
Now prove it in a listening test!
I remember doing similar things in the 80's with a few friends just asking their opinion.. the interesting comment for some changes was>>it sounds a bit different but not necessarily better...just for a laugh at the time I crossed the U/L taps over on a PP amp and got an instant comment " there is a hole in the soundstage".
Imaging can be very important to some people but many are quite happy to put both speakers up a corner and use it as "mono with perhaps better resolution"..
Lets list the things "you can't hear"
Circuit topology, component type, amp type SS>>tube, PP/SE, Class D, transistor or chip, OP amp type, PSU type, the list just goes on..
PCB type, type of wire, solder type, and to top it all off DESIGN. I missed tube type and transistor type.
If its Flat and less than 2% THD...<<<I recon that's most if not ALL amps. also possibly CD players etc.. and we must add that a digital signal can't alter enough to be audible unless something's broken. That must include interconnect construction.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.