IME, voicing in the way most people understand it is not necessary to achieve getting you "close to the music". A halfway house in engineering a complete system, not just the amp, will frequently not work, because it will emphasise, exaggerate all the largely irrelevant "defects" in the recording; the solution then is not to have the amp "forgive" those defects, it needs to be even more "brutally honest"!
If you do this in the correct manner, then a subjective "barrier" will be broken - enough detail comes through which is minimally further distorted, allowing the human hearing to filter out the music that you're after - and then all those subjective attributes will be heard, in spades ...
As an example, at the recent local audio show, nearly every exhibit using "technically correct" amplifiers had defective sound, TAD's own units were a good example of this; the room using the "brutally honest" amplifier, a Bryston, was a rare example of being able to rise above the level of subjectively poor sound elsewhere ...
you really need a tone control and loudness box, complete with low and high cut filters and such...iow, an equaliser...
Really? What is your basis for this claim?
I can imagine lots of things that don't exist.
You have been observed trolling, there is a difference.
Last edited:
Still no meaning here. So you are scoring "sound stage" on a scale of 0-40. What does 40 represent? What does 0 represent? How do you determine where any other "score" fits on that scale? What would 30 sound like, and how would that differ from 20? How on earth can you get resolution like 28%? Same with the other 2 parameters. You have thrown out a bunch of buzz words and attached some arbitrary numbers to them, but you have NOT provided any kind of framework that would make the words or the numbers meaningful.
Oh, and I take it then that when you used numbers like "28%" you did not mean that as a percentage (score out of 100) but as a score out of 40.
Last edited:
aye, there's the rub....what sounds like music to one's ears may sound like "defects" to others'.....and this is the pitfall of this thread, the absence of metrics, standards that everyone can agree upon....
nezbleu
Reproduced music can be described comprehensively by those three postulates and their subcategories, if you don't agree, present something better.
Reproduced music can be described comprehensively by those three postulates and their subcategories, if you don't agree, present something better.
you are the one making claims, you should present your metrics in a way everyone can understand and can have common understanding...convince us...
nezbleu
It doesn't matter what they represent in absolute numbers for the time being, only that a comparative scale emerges. I'm sorry if you don't get that. There are many examples in science when the idea was years ahead of the ability to prove it as many here are so fond of saying.
It doesn't matter what they represent in absolute numbers for the time being, only that a comparative scale emerges. I'm sorry if you don't get that. There are many examples in science when the idea was years ahead of the ability to prove it as many here are so fond of saying.
This sounds like a broken amplifier that was fixed, and considering the specifications, I'd be surprised to find out it wasn't.
I disagree, but I'm not playing your game. I don't find your concept interesting. There are already lots of metrics for amplifier performance, including many that are clearly audible. I do not see a need to dumb that down to a small fixed set of descriptors. I would rather increase the number of descriptors, increase the number of real metrics.
Of one thing I am certain: the three parameters you have put forward (and could you find something more pretentious to call them than "the three postulates", like you are Aristothenes or something??) are NOT a viable way to describe the sound of an amplifier (assuming for one second that that project in itself is not nonsense).
The beautiful part is, we actually do have the ability to disprove it, quite readily, but because puffy audiophiles who don't like to imagine that they've been taken to the cleaners by an audio store like to keep arguing about the validity of the test, even though it works flawlessly in any other area of science where typical audiophiles aren't in charge of doing the tests.
It's a combination of buyer's remorse and denial.
Great lengths are usually gone to while designing modern solid state amplifiers to ensure that they're as close to perfectly transparent as possible, so this whole idea of taking it in the opposite direction is really, really goofy.
Of course it matters, else you are just passing gas. You have put forward words and numbers but no way to make sense of either. I don't need you to prove anything, I just need you to make sense. I don't care whether your numbers are "correct", because I don't think your numbers mean anything, and I don't think the concepts to which you have attached those numbers are meaningful either.
AJT
Theory of special relativity, string theory, particle/wave theory, black holes, DNA/RNA, zero point energy, quantum mechanics, probability in a multi-verse, etc. Some of these are still in development but the point should be clear. First comes the notion, the proof follows. If you couldn't think of any of these on your own is it considered trolling to ask me to recite for you?
Theory of special relativity, string theory, particle/wave theory, black holes, DNA/RNA, zero point energy, quantum mechanics, probability in a multi-verse, etc. Some of these are still in development but the point should be clear. First comes the notion, the proof follows. If you couldn't think of any of these on your own is it considered trolling to ask me to recite for you?
It's quite amusing to look at the threads here in diyAudio where enthusiasts discuss all the permutations and variations of designs they've built, and cheerfully admit they all sound different - obviously DIY'ers are quite limited in their ability to create transparent amplifiers, unlike manufacturers who can pop out the good'uns all the time ... 😛
nezbleu
Those numbers are comparatively real for me in the sense that they convey information about those amps with those components in a repeatable manner. More people doing the same will create a statistical curve representing fulfillment. Still not very useful but arguably more useful than predicting your resulting playback experience from published distortion specs. The real prize is in recording the tweaks and their resulting sonic effect on my postulates with their corresponding electrical measurements. Now we have something we never had before, a table of correlation for electrical measurements and their resulting sound focused on the sound postulates that everyone should understand. I have stated these things before but the S/N in this thread has been high. No one here has asked you to play or post for that matter but you seem to be entertaining yourself by doing it. Aren't you embarrassed to ridicule my offering without offering a better one?
Those numbers are comparatively real for me in the sense that they convey information about those amps with those components in a repeatable manner. More people doing the same will create a statistical curve representing fulfillment. Still not very useful but arguably more useful than predicting your resulting playback experience from published distortion specs. The real prize is in recording the tweaks and their resulting sonic effect on my postulates with their corresponding electrical measurements. Now we have something we never had before, a table of correlation for electrical measurements and their resulting sound focused on the sound postulates that everyone should understand. I have stated these things before but the S/N in this thread has been high. No one here has asked you to play or post for that matter but you seem to be entertaining yourself by doing it. Aren't you embarrassed to ridicule my offering without offering a better one?
Last edited:
You continue to avoid answering the most basic questions that would provide any kind of usefulness to your project. Given your idea of "sound stage", what does a score of 40 represent? What does it sound like? What does a score of 0 mean? What would that sound like? How do you place a "sound" on that scale?
You see, with objective criteria I can measure the voltage of a signal, and I can measure the voltage of distortion products, and I can compare them and come up with a meaningful ratio. Then I can examine these things in more detail as the amplifier is put through its paces: how does distortion vary with signal level? How does it vary with frequency? These things have meaning and are repeatable and consistent.
You, on the other hand, have given us a bunch of words that most people who listen to reproduced music find meaningless or ambiguous at best, and you have arbitrarily attached some numbers to them in some unknown context. So these numbers are meaningless in every sense. Now you want the rest of the world to sign on and use your arbitrary criteria to derive arbitrary scores to somehow improve the state of the art, without ever attaching meaning to your criteria or numbers. Does that sound like something useful?
DrDyna
I have stated many times the caveats of relying solely on the numbers to make unequivocal determinations and I know you've read them. Do you honestly believe those caveats have no merit? My method is more akin to fuzzy logic that will work better with greater participation.It will start to make sense eventually but until then, I'll guess I'll have to keep defending.
I have stated many times the caveats of relying solely on the numbers to make unequivocal determinations and I know you've read them. Do you honestly believe those caveats have no merit? My method is more akin to fuzzy logic that will work better with greater participation.It will start to make sense eventually but until then, I'll guess I'll have to keep defending.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.