Rather, whether wealthy or poor, I’d say that listening with a bit of trust in one’s own ears does.
A reference Amp is simply a stake in the ground, its a 'sky hook", something you can "remember" and compare to other amplifiers. It doesn't have to be perfect, just familiar. From that reference one might make relative judgements about the differences in other gear. Humans can rarely judge the quality of anything on an absolute basis, we judge things relative to something we are familiar with. Test driving a new car, auditioning new speakers, refining a recipe in the kitchen we judge things from some familiar reference to other cars, other speakers, other tries at making that recipe. Only religion, politics and marketing have the audacity to claim absolutes, regular humans know things on a relative basis.
I find that a lot of "audiophiles" have never heard a good reference (flat response) system because they are usually too busy "upgrading" every single different component that can be changed.
I predominantly repair pro-audio equipment these days but do keep a good reference system in my workshop (which has a naturally good acoustic environment) and once in a while I get an audiophile in for e.g. a full re-cap to whatever colour of "audio" caps sound best this week.
I always let them hear some well recorded music on my system and there hasn't been a single time when they didn't start raving in strange undefinable terms about how good they thought it was, one was really dramatic (eyes shut, fists clenched and taking sharp intakes of breath) ... I'm glad the music was loud cause I could hardly control myself.
It's always a laugh to compare how much they have spent compared to my investment (I removed the badges on my nearfields so as not to give away the secret of what they are) ... the audiophiles always think that because I repair gear that I must have UBER expensive gear ... when in reality I've only spent about £250 on a set of bi-amped behringer nearfields (which are Class D, TI TPA3116 & TPA3130) & a 2nd hand Tannoy TS2.10 SUB, (I do also use a Peavey electronic Xover & a DSP1100 that I got free as scrap and repaired for parametric sub processing) but let me tell you when you get the nearfields at ear height in a good room the system sounds great ...
I like flat response active speakers (i.e. the whole box and electronics are developed by the same team) so I can initially "reference" as close to the original mix as the audio producer and engineers intended ... if I don't like what they produced I just EQ to what I do ... 🙂
I predominantly repair pro-audio equipment these days but do keep a good reference system in my workshop (which has a naturally good acoustic environment) and once in a while I get an audiophile in for e.g. a full re-cap to whatever colour of "audio" caps sound best this week.
I always let them hear some well recorded music on my system and there hasn't been a single time when they didn't start raving in strange undefinable terms about how good they thought it was, one was really dramatic (eyes shut, fists clenched and taking sharp intakes of breath) ... I'm glad the music was loud cause I could hardly control myself.
It's always a laugh to compare how much they have spent compared to my investment (I removed the badges on my nearfields so as not to give away the secret of what they are) ... the audiophiles always think that because I repair gear that I must have UBER expensive gear ... when in reality I've only spent about £250 on a set of bi-amped behringer nearfields (which are Class D, TI TPA3116 & TPA3130) & a 2nd hand Tannoy TS2.10 SUB, (I do also use a Peavey electronic Xover & a DSP1100 that I got free as scrap and repaired for parametric sub processing) but let me tell you when you get the nearfields at ear height in a good room the system sounds great ...
I like flat response active speakers (i.e. the whole box and electronics are developed by the same team) so I can initially "reference" as close to the original mix as the audio producer and engineers intended ... if I don't like what they produced I just EQ to what I do ... 🙂
Are you saying poor people cannot be objective? so anyone who dare challenge the cult of the SINAD is a (poor) emotional, subjective ‘human’ who obviously cannot know the glory of the analyzer? The measurements say it must be a reference right? Thank you, the data provided shows why CoS is my reference cult
It amplifies the voltage at a speed that is enough for the ear, adding or subtracting nothing, regardless of the connected load. However, in real life, most sources suck, so they also have to filter something extra and calm the situation down being more universal.
I always thought that a "reference"amplifier was one in which the "reference speaker system" it was paired with coexisted in absolute harmony. TRUE FLAT response throughout. I personally like a little salt and pepper with my FLAT... that being said, reference is a generally accepted baseline that is achieved through strenuous testing of all aspects of a sound system, not just the amplifier or speaker system. A reference amplifier wont make my SPARKOMATIC El CRAPOS sound any better. LOL... BDBD/2022
You cant get beter than active speakers .... (no directional speaker cable problems) ... 🙂
No, it was my stupid attempt at making a joke. Surely, poor people can be as objective as anyone else. Unfortunately I don't understand the meaning of CoS. But I would like to maintain that measurements are all important when it comes to setting standards. As well as when it comes to predicting subjective performance.
Please tell us more about your method and experience in using measurements to predict subjective performance.
Fair enough vacuphile, i also think measurements play a role in setting standards and expectations for our ears. I also think analysis paralysis is very real and often measurements and beliefs extrapolated from them can unduly influence our very impressionable and subjective hearing..
So what about naming a ‘reference’ amplifier?The benchmark has been put out there…let me add this, the only amplifiers which I have consistently heard referred to as ‘reference’ (in a non-sales conversation) is bryston, usually the 4b but others as well. Why? Low distortion, able to drive anything, class leading build quality and a 20 year warranty.. Detractors say it is cold/flat/sterile, much the same as detractors would say about a very low distortion class d amp such as the benchmark.
So what about naming a ‘reference’ amplifier?The benchmark has been put out there…let me add this, the only amplifiers which I have consistently heard referred to as ‘reference’ (in a non-sales conversation) is bryston, usually the 4b but others as well. Why? Low distortion, able to drive anything, class leading build quality and a 20 year warranty.. Detractors say it is cold/flat/sterile, much the same as detractors would say about a very low distortion class d amp such as the benchmark.
Last edited:
Offer you a job? Stick to arguments?
What are you even talking about??
You, essentially, stated that you use measurements to predict subjective performance. I’m simply curious to read more about that.
That is a good question. There is a lot of literature on that matter. For example, Geddes has done extensive research into the perception of distortion and has published on the issue. More complicated is the relationship between loudspeaker measurements and subjective evaluation. But a lot of understanding has been gathered and is accessible. Harman has published some of their findings. Their top in house scientist Floyd Toole wrote some great books. And this is just scraping the surface.
Yes, I’m aware of those resources. I was more hoping to read about your personal methodology and experience, out of my own curiosity. This is not sarcasm, and my postings on this subject within other threads will confirm that I’m not trolling you.
Ken, sorry, have become a bit weary. Anyhow, this is a patent I got late last century. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5710395A/zh
After you download the pdf, it might give some idea about where my thinking was at that time. And still is to a large extent. Crux of the matter is that outside shape and dimensions of a loudspeaker determine sound radiation. This is measurable and the measurements can be related to subjective quality perception. This is much more accepted today than it was at the time.
The patent has long expired, but it brought me a licensing deal with Harman. Plus it got me into the loudspeaker lab Philips had at that time in Dendermonde. And extensive measurements and evaluations were made in Harman's Northridge facility. So I got a bit networked with some of the great in the industry and plundered their brains.
I still develop loudspeakers and will open a listening room in the Netherlands soon.
Best, Paul
After you download the pdf, it might give some idea about where my thinking was at that time. And still is to a large extent. Crux of the matter is that outside shape and dimensions of a loudspeaker determine sound radiation. This is measurable and the measurements can be related to subjective quality perception. This is much more accepted today than it was at the time.
The patent has long expired, but it brought me a licensing deal with Harman. Plus it got me into the loudspeaker lab Philips had at that time in Dendermonde. And extensive measurements and evaluations were made in Harman's Northridge facility. So I got a bit networked with some of the great in the industry and plundered their brains.
I still develop loudspeakers and will open a listening room in the Netherlands soon.
Best, Paul
Paul, no worries. 🙂 Thanks for that link, I will take a look at your patent.
Regards, Ken
I reckon it’s a great name for a HiFi manufacturer,
“Reference Audio”
or a record label: ‘Reference Records”
Has it been registered?
🤩
“Reference Audio”
or a record label: ‘Reference Records”
Has it been registered?
🤩