Hi,
anyway, it is important to keep the objective and subjective domains strictly separate. Sound quality cannot be measured or proven; its value is chosen (on a variable cognitive level).
Could someone explain the relevance of the term "conscious" and "subconscious" in the context of sound perception without entering voodoo science please?
anyway, it is important to keep the objective and subjective domains strictly separate. Sound quality cannot be measured or proven; its value is chosen (on a variable cognitive level).
Could someone explain the relevance of the term "conscious" and "subconscious" in the context of sound perception without entering voodoo science please?
People who are genuinely interested about ClassD should have a look at Pro Audio forums. There are many "reference" amps being replaced by, mostly, Hypex gear.
Another example are the Lipinski monitors which come with their own ClassD amps (as an option). Lots of satisfied professionals (including various "mastering celebrities") who rave about their performance.
So, it seems ClassD can sound just as good as any other class of operation but only a few people have the know-how.
I can understand these amps probably won't satisfy the love-my-half-watt-SET-amp-and-it's-harmonics-through-my-crossoverless-loudspeakers crowd, ever, but then again not many properly engineered amps do so...
Another example are the Lipinski monitors which come with their own ClassD amps (as an option). Lots of satisfied professionals (including various "mastering celebrities") who rave about their performance.
So, it seems ClassD can sound just as good as any other class of operation but only a few people have the know-how.
I can understand these amps probably won't satisfy the love-my-half-watt-SET-amp-and-it's-harmonics-through-my-crossoverless-loudspeakers crowd, ever, but then again not many properly engineered amps do so...
Last edited:
While I think I understand where you're coming from, I'm not sure this is necessary, or even possible.
I think it can be measured; that doesn't mean that it is being measured. The best qualitative measuring tool is still two ears (and so, enter the subjective).
How about, 'Conscious' - something we are aware of and can talk about.Could someone explain the relevance of the term "conscious" and "subconscious" in the context of sound perception without entering voodoo science please?
'Subconscious' - something we are not aware of and can't talk about.
Unfortunately there's a murky area: Stuff that bugs us and we can't describe it.
Subconscious: that black void behind the eyes where words and everything else comes from.
Nice words! Thanks!
Uh, in what way does such aggression advance us in our efforts to make better sounding gear?
In the case of my speakers...the selling cost includes more than just parts cost (duh)...which is an order of magnitude over the $1K figure you quoted... and we also need to amortize the over $200K life-savings we invested in developing the product. Unless someone generous like you would like to fund our work, we still need to charge enough to pay the rent!
As for the marketing lingo, it was the best I could do to describe in writing how and why the speakers perform so well. Of course, I'd be pleased if an eminent writer like you could re-write our materials to be less "offensive". How about you re-write my website to suit your perspective and then send me the results? I'd LOVE to see what you could come up with!
Sir: to condemn people's commercial efforts without hearing them, and without all the facts might seem a little over the top and probably doesn't make you look all that good to the other readers here, despite your posturing.
As for the testing suggestions I offered, I found a way of testing that clearly showed that certain factors we had long assumed to be insignificant because they are "inaudible" to the general population (like time-accuracy), are actually quite meaningful.
And as a result of being able to better quantify the human reaction to this issue, we came up with a product which corrects for that and attains very elevated performance levels, both measurable and subjective.
So, I thought perhaps I would let a few others in on this way of testing, in the hopes that the actual amplifier designers here could and would try it out. It might lead to some interesting discoveries and advancements in amp design.
Funny thing is, it seems to have spawned a whole lot of condemnation from a few "non-commercial parties"... a little surprising perhaps, but then again, this forum has seen more than its share of juvenile, "turf" claiming, hostile attitudes.
Of course, spending more time attacking other contributors ("interested parties") is going to advance our general knowledge base and lead to better sounding gear, right?
Thanks so much for your great input. It's been very helpful.
Happy trails on your continued journey....
Waki, that's a LOT of condemnation in just a few paragraphs, quite a shotgun blast, and aimed at several people all at once!
Uh, in what way does such aggression advance us in our efforts to make better sounding gear?
In the case of my speakers...the selling cost includes more than just parts cost (duh)...which is an order of magnitude over the $1K figure you quoted... and we also need to amortize the over $200K life-savings we invested in developing the product. Unless someone generous like you would like to fund our work, we still need to charge enough to pay the rent!
As for the marketing lingo, it was the best I could do to describe in writing how and why the speakers perform so well. Of course, I'd be pleased if an eminent writer like you could re-write our materials to be less "offensive". How about you re-write my website to suit your perspective and then send me the results? I'd LOVE to see what you could come up with!
Sir: to condemn people's commercial efforts without hearing them, and without all the facts might seem a little over the top and probably doesn't make you look all that good to the other readers here, despite your posturing.
As for the testing suggestions I offered, I found a way of testing that clearly showed that certain factors we had long assumed to be insignificant because they are "inaudible" to the general population (like time-accuracy), are actually quite meaningful.
And as a result of being able to better quantify the human reaction to this issue, we came up with a product which corrects for that and attains very elevated performance levels, both measurable and subjective.
So, I thought perhaps I would let a few others in on this way of testing, in the hopes that the actual amplifier designers here could and would try it out. It might lead to some interesting discoveries and advancements in amp design.
Funny thing is, it seems to have spawned a whole lot of condemnation from a few "non-commercial parties"... a little surprising perhaps, but then again, this forum has seen more than its share of juvenile, "turf" claiming, hostile attitudes.
Of course, spending more time attacking other contributors ("interested parties") is going to advance our general knowledge base and lead to better sounding gear, right?
Thanks so much for your great input. It's been very helpful.
Happy trails on your continued journey....
Last edited:
This is true. Mastering is the art of creating records that will sound well on crappy mass production equipment. Before that what was used for mastering? Yamaha bookshelf speakers with toilet paper on tweeters. Why? Because target auditory listened mastered records on car speakers and bookshelf speakers.
High end records are not mastered. They are captured by minimum of microphones in nice environments.
This is true as well. People "who have the know-how" know that it is the matter of taste: either to dissipate 100W in the amp using high efficiency speakers, or to dissipate the same 100W in speakers, using high efficiency class D amps.
Yes, mice can find free lunch. But in a mousetrap only.
How about this?
For audio purposes I would propose:
- "Conscious" is the stuff you are able to notice that you are hearing while in a waking state.
- "Subliminal" is the stuff that registers in the background, elicits a measurable response in the body, but is usually not consciously noticed.
OK, so why is it so important to get the subliminal stuff right also?
Some of it will have a negative long term effect, such as a gradual increase in stress levels that eventually culminate in a growing dissatisfaction with the playback. This can lead to some sad experiences (listener's fatigue) and behavior (incessant desire to change components, more time spent listening for the faults than actually enjoying the music, etc.)
So it might be useful to reduce the factors that contribute to the negative subliminals, and increase the factors that contribute to the positive. Yes?
How about conscious perception vs subliminal perception?
For audio purposes I would propose:
- "Conscious" is the stuff you are able to notice that you are hearing while in a waking state.
- "Subliminal" is the stuff that registers in the background, elicits a measurable response in the body, but is usually not consciously noticed.
OK, so why is it so important to get the subliminal stuff right also?
Some of it will have a negative long term effect, such as a gradual increase in stress levels that eventually culminate in a growing dissatisfaction with the playback. This can lead to some sad experiences (listener's fatigue) and behavior (incessant desire to change components, more time spent listening for the faults than actually enjoying the music, etc.)
So it might be useful to reduce the factors that contribute to the negative subliminals, and increase the factors that contribute to the positive. Yes?
Last edited:
AVE...
@FrankWW...
"Subconscious" in the context of psychology and psychoacoustics should be replaced by more appropriate term: unconscious mind. I would strongly recommend reading some contemporary research on this subject, as it can explain, why some people tend to ignore objective data and set for less demanding subjective opinions...
If we use psychoanalytic* approach, then we can easily prove, why class D amps are not selling too well in the audiophile circles (this was stated earlier in this topic). As with any other male activities the quality of equipment is taken personally. And class D amplifiers are small in terms of physical size. If you are not confortable with yourself, you will invest great amounts of money and effort to make yourself better by investing in equipment. It is natural to perceive ourself trough things we posses - this is the main reason why super-cars, which are completely unpractical are so popular...
@Jack Caldwell...
Effects of subliminal stimuli are hard to measure and observe. They usually have little or no effect on person and never last. However it is true that we perceive more then we consciously notice. I experienced this when unconscious reaction of my mind and body saved me from being beheaded...
I would also like to add that, in many cases all equipment-related decisions and perceived results are based not on what one hears, but on what he expects to hear and can't satisfy his or hers expectations. That's why most audiophile stuff is big, bulky, expensive and overadvertised with false statements, pseudo-science and claims taken from monkey's butt. You buy super-SE tube amp with palladium resistors, gold-pressed latinum capacitors, add to it speakers designed by NASA, connect them with carbon fiber and pure copper wires blessed by the pope himself and you just expect to hear this quality. And you will hear it, I'm sure of that...
If someone would make class D amp in fancy box and claim that it sounds better than whatever everyone else has, and he would be convincing, his design will repeat the success of the other audiophile miracles. It would be like with GainClone fad...
As for me, I'll stick to my homebrew el cheapo audio equipment, those horrifyingly bad MP3's, audio CD's and other stuff that is considered by "true audiophiles" being total crap for little people. I just accept who I am...
* - I don't take this theory too serious, because it's not scientific enough, but for most time its as good as any other psychological theory. As for men compensating for their size with various "prosthetic penis" cars, weapons, computers, audio equipment, etc. it works...
@FrankWW...
"Subconscious" in the context of psychology and psychoacoustics should be replaced by more appropriate term: unconscious mind. I would strongly recommend reading some contemporary research on this subject, as it can explain, why some people tend to ignore objective data and set for less demanding subjective opinions...
If we use psychoanalytic* approach, then we can easily prove, why class D amps are not selling too well in the audiophile circles (this was stated earlier in this topic). As with any other male activities the quality of equipment is taken personally. And class D amplifiers are small in terms of physical size. If you are not confortable with yourself, you will invest great amounts of money and effort to make yourself better by investing in equipment. It is natural to perceive ourself trough things we posses - this is the main reason why super-cars, which are completely unpractical are so popular...
@Jack Caldwell...
Effects of subliminal stimuli are hard to measure and observe. They usually have little or no effect on person and never last. However it is true that we perceive more then we consciously notice. I experienced this when unconscious reaction of my mind and body saved me from being beheaded...
I would also like to add that, in many cases all equipment-related decisions and perceived results are based not on what one hears, but on what he expects to hear and can't satisfy his or hers expectations. That's why most audiophile stuff is big, bulky, expensive and overadvertised with false statements, pseudo-science and claims taken from monkey's butt. You buy super-SE tube amp with palladium resistors, gold-pressed latinum capacitors, add to it speakers designed by NASA, connect them with carbon fiber and pure copper wires blessed by the pope himself and you just expect to hear this quality. And you will hear it, I'm sure of that...
If someone would make class D amp in fancy box and claim that it sounds better than whatever everyone else has, and he would be convincing, his design will repeat the success of the other audiophile miracles. It would be like with GainClone fad...
As for me, I'll stick to my homebrew el cheapo audio equipment, those horrifyingly bad MP3's, audio CD's and other stuff that is considered by "true audiophiles" being total crap for little people. I just accept who I am...
* - I don't take this theory too serious, because it's not scientific enough, but for most time its as good as any other psychological theory. As for men compensating for their size with various "prosthetic penis" cars, weapons, computers, audio equipment, etc. it works...
Hi Urgon;
Actually, both class A and class D amps are selling to audiophiles. For example, class A amps that drive high efficiency speakers with plate class D amps on their back to drive low efficiency woofers inside.
Subconscious perception and unconscious choice of Freudian equipment are totally different things. 😀
When people expect to hear concerts, but have to hear distortions, of course their expectations can't be satisfied.
"If somebody would make class D amp in fancy box and claim it sounds better than whatever everyone else has, and he would be convincing", the truth will be found as soon as the amp connected to high efficiency speakers. Even if conscious mind can't tell what is wrong, subconscious mind would definitely suggest that something is very wrong. 😀
All that fancy palladium resistors and other jewelry is added to amps because it is relatively cheap compared to cost of research, design, development, and manufacturing of such amps. Customers usually don't understand that. But they respect costs of very expensive materials inside. So, they are added to justify real expenses, on their background.
Actually, both class A and class D amps are selling to audiophiles. For example, class A amps that drive high efficiency speakers with plate class D amps on their back to drive low efficiency woofers inside.
Subconscious perception and unconscious choice of Freudian equipment are totally different things. 😀
When people expect to hear concerts, but have to hear distortions, of course their expectations can't be satisfied.
"If somebody would make class D amp in fancy box and claim it sounds better than whatever everyone else has, and he would be convincing", the truth will be found as soon as the amp connected to high efficiency speakers. Even if conscious mind can't tell what is wrong, subconscious mind would definitely suggest that something is very wrong. 😀
All that fancy palladium resistors and other jewelry is added to amps because it is relatively cheap compared to cost of research, design, development, and manufacturing of such amps. Customers usually don't understand that. But they respect costs of very expensive materials inside. So, they are added to justify real expenses, on their background.
Last edited:
Which as I understand it is what the electrode & alpha wave tests apparently showed.
Unless I'm missing some information in the middle, this is just an untested hypothesis.
I don't recall ever seeing anything (including this thread) that quantified listener fatigue. And I'd go so far to say the behavior part is simply that - a behavior. It's akin to the "the grass is always greener" mentality, applied to audiophilia.
Thoughts ??? Or my humble suppositions if you like:
In the economic world there must NOT strongly exist a correlation between our persception of logic/sense and the finally fallen decisions in the companies/financiers lobbies etc ...
The 3 liter per 100 km dissipating car is invented 25 years ago. How big was the presence of these cars in the market up to nowadays ... ? Where ist the sense ... ?
For my part I am very convinced about the audiophile performance of Class D.
A Tripath supplied with a full 12 Volt sealed-lead-acid battery offered me more listenning luxury than a several times more expensive class A/B amp. Super efficient, minimum power consumption, death silent, incredibly details etc... Of course with efficent speakers. BUT as I said above the economy has it´s own rules we´ll never understand ...
AVE...
2. How can you explain that the truth about GainClones was never found even though these were made and connected to different speaker sets by thousands people?
Side question: how can you (and anyone else here) explain the mysterious sound improving power of those cables? For me it's the Placebo effect and mysterious power of "audio-voodoo" magic. And this can be also proven with double blind test. I'll bet another keg of beer on that...
But both are connected to the same subject: expectations. One buys his "prosthetic penis" and expects to hear that, so his mind alters what he perceives to fulfill his expectations. Even if he subconsciously hears that it's not what he expected, this won't affect him too much - he will simply blame this on other piece of his equipment and spend more money until unconscious part of his mind fixes the problem. He will eventually replace the faulty element, but purely by accident. And even then he probably won't be satisfied because someone else has better "prosthetic penis"...
I used many different "noise makers". The only time I heard distortions was when I made an amp based on TL431. I also heard noise on the headphones I fixed with unshielded cable. And I heard fair share of class D amplifiers in battery-powered devices such as e-book readers for blind, pocket music players, cellphones, active headphones, etc. I never heard any distortions other than those in badly-encoded files...
1. How can efficiency of speakers affect the quality of sound?
2. How can you explain that the truth about GainClones was never found even though these were made and connected to different speaker sets by thousands people?
Au contraire, audio jewelry is claimed for making GC, and many other amps sound superior. And I will bet a keg of beer that it's true, and I can prove it in double blind test...
Side question: how can you (and anyone else here) explain the mysterious sound improving power of those cables? For me it's the Placebo effect and mysterious power of "audio-voodoo" magic. And this can be also proven with double blind test. I'll bet another keg of beer on that...
...in all other cases you thought that you hear real live sounds, not reproduction? 😱
Lucky you! 😀
AVE...
It's hard to hear live music, while having headphones on your head and "noise maker" in pocket/hand or on desk. Yet still quality of sound was satisfying enough...
Also if I want to listen to live performance, I listen to live performance. If you are expecting "life performance" quality from recording, you are already doomed. Your expectations will never be fulfilled because your own mind won't let you...
It's hard to hear live music, while having headphones on your head and "noise maker" in pocket/hand or on desk. Yet still quality of sound was satisfying enough...
Also if I want to listen to live performance, I listen to live performance. If you are expecting "life performance" quality from recording, you are already doomed. Your expectations will never be fulfilled because your own mind won't let you...
It is simple: sellers of cables charge to match prices of high end amps. High end amps are not in mass production, but they have to look not worse than mass production. For mass production you can spend for example about $30,000 for equipment setup and share this among all 30,000 amps sold, i.e. $1 for equipment setup. All other expenses like R/D, equipment amortization, transportation, certifications, and so on included in price of amps are shared among them resulting in low numbers per amp. For example, if you order 1 PCB you pay $150, but if you order 1,000 of them you pay $5 for the same PCB. And so on.
So, if you pay about $1,500 for one nice looking chassis per amp you may decide to pay $100 for resistors in the amp instead of $2 for all of them, even if sound quality improvement will be mediocre.
Yes. I am already doomed by an equipment I design. 😀
Also, my wife says I damaged her hearing because she can't listen now music from stock Hi-fi sold to masses. 😀
Last edited:
Have you ever been to a proper mastering studio, with hi-end electronics, room treatment and stuff?
Based on what I've experienced, most people (read: those who listen with a sofa in front of the left speaker or/and an opening behind one of those while the other is stuffed into a corner etc etc....) would be lucky if they ever heard half as decently. But then again, most people think that the aim of High Fidelity gear is to reproduce "live" sound from canned recordings, and that not only is this possible but it's also just a matter of "matching" and "parts selection". Oh, and it goes without saying that it's essential to use high quality wiring and silver solder, avoid opamps and feedback, use NOS tubes and caps when possible and all of that while totally ignoring "trivial" issues such as the listening room.
Too bad I only listen to real music and not "hi-end records".
No more Diana Krall and "reference recordings" of boring music, please.... 🙄
I'd rather think outside the usual mousetraps people choose to trap themselves into. Active DSP loudspeakers are the way to go, IMHO. That way you can have your cheese (not having to waste tons of power on a passive crossover) and eat it too (get proper high fidelity resolution, dynamics and even a bit of room correction on top).
Last edited:
AVE...
You are crazy, TheShaman - any DSP is a no-no for "true audiophile"! Not reproducing the sound as accurate as it was recorded is preposterous! You must listen to your recording as if you were in the recording studio or music hall in front of performer(s). This is the way of "true audiophile"...
You are crazy, TheShaman - any DSP is a no-no for "true audiophile"! Not reproducing the sound as accurate as it was recorded is preposterous! You must listen to your recording as if you were in the recording studio or music hall in front of performer(s). This is the way of "true audiophile"...
There is a difference between "high fidelity" and "audiophile sound." Attempting to equate the two is the basis of many of the debates on the forums.
Yeah, I know, I'm a heretic to say the least. That's why I try to stay off these discussions.
For example, there is nothing subjective about the fact that our listening rooms dominate what most of us hear from our sound systems, but then again these discussions are not fun because you can't sneak room treatments from the wife as easy as a new NOS tube. Plus room treatments aren't as shiny nor as imposing as the big heat-sinks of a Class A amp nor will they ever make it in Stereophile's Recommended Components list. So why bother? 🙄
I hear you. There are people who have completely different hobbies and who just happen lurk on the same forums because the word "audio" happened to be on the forum title. 😉
Last edited:
You could start by getting Earl Geddes work right. HOM stands for higher order modes not modulation. His waveguide design has nothing to do with preventing air from going into its non-linear region, this requires enormous SPL. In fact he states over and over unequivocaly that THD has virtually nothing to do with percieved sound quality.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.