Yeah!!! June/July, on location!!!!!
Agreed, on location is good. I have relatives in the highlands, so it would be nice to visit them again.
FWIW, I did interpret Steve's comment as laughing along with me, not at me.
One of the pernicious effects of listening evaluations is the "different is better" effect. Since, particularly in rapid comparisons, if present, frequency response changes are pretty easy to hear, on level-matched program material one is likely to hear something that may not have been noticed before. This provides fodder for reviewers, who go on about the sound of a certain performance changing between devices, and noticing a particular pluck of a guitar string or resonance in the mid-bass, as if it almost wasn't there before---and conclude that a given device has better resolution etc. Since most amplifiers (say) are rather flat in response and rather low output impedance, they will tend to sound more alike to one another under conditions well below clipping, absent serious defects like severe crossover distortion at low levels. Introduce one that has higher output impedance, or use cables with high inductance/resistance, and you are likely to hear real differences driving the same loudspeakers.
I don't deny the possibility of small effects, although for me perceiving them sometimes runs counter to the litany about aural memory being very short-term. I think one ideally does both short-term and long-term listening. After some initial enthusiasm, I eventually found early digital audio (early-gen Mitsubishi CD player, often poor transfers to silver disc) very fatiguing. It was a sort-of opposite to burn-in, perhaps better described as listener burn-out. I was accused of being prejudiced against the medium by one composer and housemate, who thought it all sounded terrific (he did have measured hearing loss, and not just high-frequency deficiency). Oddly, he also was unhappy with reproduction via a MC240 I had just repaired for my brother, compared to a mid-fi (NAD) solid-state amp. He was unable to articulate what he heard about it that sounded wrong, just didn't like it.
"Who am I to dispute the feelings of audiophiles who, evaluating any cable in the context of program source, amplifier, speaker, and listening room, decide they can hear the difference? A few guidelines have emerged here, but the final judgment belongs to the user."
A smart guy (and a very good designer).
Hi Steve,
Some of you other ancient folks out there might remember that ad. It was a full page advert in magazines.
-Chris
Ouch man!
No, they were all in a series string with attenuators before the next stage. It was a big thing for them that the distortion numbers still beat the spec of a single unit. I may be wrong, but I think it was a string of 30 amplifiers.
Some of you other ancient folks out there might remember that ad. It was a full page advert in magazines.
-Chris
Hi Richard,
We have to grow up and ignore minor little pops when switching that are just small noise. Its too easy for the advert department to point at these minor things and raise the flag. Meanwhile the equipment may have very serious flaws.
Hey, I'm a technician. What would you expect me to say?
-Chris
MC amplifier chain? Leading with a flat amp seems to be a classic moving coil approach.
Yes, or another approach might be to use circuits that don't typically have a high DC offset. In fact, circuits can be designed with the manual adjustment that is thermally compensated. Look at some early Marantz amplifier circuits. I have checked DC offset 10 or so years after the first adjustment and they are still nice and low. I think that many times a servo isn't required at all. For production (and the warranty program), avoiding adjustments is a cost reduction thing only.
Well, yes. Of course that is true. But I also think people can be worried over minor issues to the point where they miss the real important issues. This is how big business operates. Governments too.
We have to grow up and ignore minor little pops when switching that are just small noise. Its too easy for the advert department to point at these minor things and raise the flag. Meanwhile the equipment may have very serious flaws.
Hey, I'm a technician. What would you expect me to say?
-Chris
The automotive folks got crazy over this. And about the same time the RF interference in the vehicle intensified markedly, producing other artifacts.
I would be told by salesmen and others that power cycling transients ought to be simple problems to fix, and some would offer suggestions (Salesman: Can't you just have everything come up more slowly? Engineer: No, that will just make it a lot worse. S: Why?? E: How much time do you have for an explanation?).
Thank you. I was indeed laughing along with you.
Thing is, I could care less what people go with to satisfy their subjective pleasures. I take the same approach. My problem has always been when people try and take it beyond that and assume or claim outright that any subjectively perceived difference must by definition (because they "heard it") have an actual audible component behind it, which is something we know isn't necessarily true. And if they want to establish anything beyond their simple subjective experience, they need to show an actual difference that is within known audible thresholds, or if not, demonstrate that it is actually audible using appropriately controlled listening tests.
I can't think of anything that is unreasonable about that position, but it sure puts some people's panties in a bunch for some reason.
se
Hi Brad,
-Chris
Not a surprise. I got out of automotive audio about the time when the crazy "cheater" amplifiers began to show up. It was an industry gone wild, a ride we didn't need. There was some truly great audio stuff designed, then the market shifted to junk with bias that didn't track and high distortion. They had clean audio on the run, because clean audio was so much more expensive to produce. I note that the goal still appears to be "boom - tick - tick" type stuff. It is amazing that the public hasn't clued in yet.
-Chris
Sorry, man.
You don't look a day over 30 though!
Yipes! That is a bit odd. But I bet it looked plenty impressive.
Maybe after dinner I'll do a little sleuthing and see if I can find the ad. I'm sure someone has scanned it by now and put it online, but could be buried pretty deep.
se
Hi Stuart,
Nope, not Ace Audio. Quad ran the ad for the 303 amplifier. Radio Electronics is where I saw that I think, could have been and audio magazine.
Hi Steve,
Well, I am a grandfather now.
Yes, it did. The picture showed a string of amps lined up in a curving line hooked one to the next. Early 70's to maybe mid 70's. I wish I could remember more about that ad. At the time I thought it was a silly ad ... what were they trying to prove?
-Chris
Nope, not Ace Audio. Quad ran the ad for the 303 amplifier. Radio Electronics is where I saw that I think, could have been and audio magazine.
Hi Steve,
Well, I am a grandfather now.
Yes, it did. The picture showed a string of amps lined up in a curving line hooked one to the next. Early 70's to maybe mid 70's. I wish I could remember more about that ad. At the time I thought it was a silly ad ... what were they trying to prove?
-Chris
Hopefully, if we can find the ad, it will answer that question. Can't imagine they'd do that without some sort of explanation. I'll start digging after dinner.
se
Hi,
Don't most know about the Big issues. IMO, the big issues have already been identified.
DC without servo... did that myself a couple years ago for my Headphone amp for Linear Audio magazine. Not new to me or other designers. Low gain circuits like PA or headphone amps are much easier to direct couple. But a high gain circuits - MC or MM preamp or mic preamp will be much harder without a large coupling cap or servo.
Now, for some, like myself, it is down to the little things. Fine tuning. And, yes, even if it isnt audible to anyone, still make it better if you can. Better ----> for same high level of performance, lower cost, fewer parts, less heat, Such as IC amps for low level. Even there, you can fine tune with better OPS, new OPS operation, etc. It moves out of the realm of ordinary audio to the level called Perfectionist Audio.... Performance Plus.
For example of Performance Plus or perfectionist Audio, Scott W. did a superb discrete line level amplifier a year ago... does much better than -100dB THD+N. Its here in DIY-land as the SWOPA. Nice circuit to replace noiser, higher distortion circuits or opa in recording gear.... Performance Plus.
Some of the perfectionist audio is to the nth degree just for fun. I/we know the difference. But not everyone does, and they can be taken advantage of.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Of course whilst under new management their new statement AMP stretches credibility even further. OTOH if there are people out there who want to spend $240k on an amplifier why not!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.