3 interesting articles from AES, Journal of Elect Engineers, Eric Barbour

[300A]

The problem is that most studied tests in controlled environment have some correlation in real world listening environments...and we can go on ad nauseum about the tests forever, but the test environment is not the same(identical) to a non test environment...and there is no coreelation between the two but a lot of assumptions and innuendo as to what the result of a test says and what the real world says. Floyd Toole's also notes that these are results for the test environment not a real world environment. DBT's have shown that within the testing environment and the controls set-up - people have failed to distinguish differences to a statistically significant level better than chance.

That is ALL there is on the subject...Innuendo by the uninformed beyond this is why Americans got fat eating low fat diets for 30 years instead of following the once maligned now considered food God Dr. Atkins. The body of sicence was wrong because they took short cuts and made ASSUMPTIONS with having ALL the facts. Audio may not be the same...but there are certainly ASSUMPTIONS. There are two terms about testing Reliability which reproduces the same results over and over so we can reliably predict what is going to happen in a test involving trials. Then there is validitiy...how does what is being tested directly relate to that of reality. If a stereo is designed to provide long term musical enjoyment in one's home - then how valid is a test not set-up to that goal? Vague yes...but lots of bad tests have reliability, validity is the most important and of the two MORE important than reliability. You'd need both. Problem is that the direct problem is that normal listening is sighted, which is contradictory to what a DBT demands...it is this that causes "some" of the confusion and bickering. Nothing wrong with Double Blind tests - The complete story not according to psychologists or statisticians - the complete story to engineers? pick your field.

Agreed, assumptions are made that completely invalidate the tests.
Two points I would like to reply too.

1) Who decides which tests are valid and which aren't?

2) One can duplicate, over and over again, and get the same results each time as assumptions can lead people to the same conclusions, thus total inaccuracy.

For instance, how many times do you have the subjects listen to the same selection, and over what period of time. Over and over again certainly leads to the blending of the sound of the two different pieces of gear. You will always get the results of no difference. This happens visually too. Pretty close to black will be perceived as black if shown enough times. (This applies to any color, one the actual color and another that is close to that color.)

Another problem is if any comments are made, it could end up being deceitful. And in fact, deceit was directed toward the subjects, causing erroneous results. Crafts used one reference in which this occured.

[mtrycraft]

Agreed, assumptions are made that completely invalidate the tests.
Two points I would like to reply too.

1) Who decides which tests are valid and which aren't?

2) One can duplicate, over and over again, and get the same results each time as assumptions can lead people to the same conclusions, thus total inaccuracy.

For instance, how many times do you have the subjects listen to the same selection, and over what period of time. Over and over again certainly leads to the blending of the sound of the two different pieces of gear. You will always get the results of no difference. This happens visually too. Pretty close to black will be perceived as black if shown enough times. (This applies to any color, one the actual color and another that is close to that color.)

Another problem is if any comments are made, it could end up being deceitful. And in fact, deceit was directed toward the subjects, causing erroneous results. Crafts used one reference in which this occured.

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

[300A]

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

Using the term "The court of science" is interesting since the DBT tests are an inexact science, thus not factual by definition.

"people in the know decide"

Since when is that proof? "Deciding" isn't proof, it is opinion by definition. I want proof crafts, not your exaggerated/uneducated general comments.
It is up to you to prove that DBT tests are factual. You can't do it.
Give some references to support your unsubstantiated claims.

"Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning."

And yet, DBT tests are not factual as you have just pointed out above, it is decisions/ opinions. So they are also unreliable.

So in the end, you are only breathing opinions.

[RGA]

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

The court of science...a buch of people that happen to agree on something...a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it a fact unless it is a proven 100% fact. Your inclusion of psychology here is dead wroong other than on reliability...and it takes validity to gain any understanding.

You can have lots of reliability...reliably wrong too. And the test you have never, notr has any of these engineers demonstrated is valid which is why none of you ever looks up the definition or can even post the definition of either the term validity or how it applies here.

I like the way you shift it back to sighted listening as if to say that if someone complains about validity thtathey are defending sighted listening? Not so...silly strawman.

Define Validity, tell me how it applies to real world listening for what a stereo was designed to do? You can't. Now you may say it's more valid than sighted listening and the indication is that people may not be able to distinguish differences and that people who claim large differences fail in "controlled environments" to repeat what they claim to hear sighted...all of this i can accept from you. But DBT does not prove that A sounds the same as B...and that also is in the definition of a Double Blind test in My University level Stats book. Failing to distingish a difference statistically in a controlled environment leads to correlation within the test environment. A DBT is not the end all proof...if you think so then you lie because NO scientific community would say this other than you...engineers aren't scientists...sorrry to burst your bubble on this fact.

I certainly have not said sighted testing isreliable...never have. Complaining about a poor test, an invalid test does not mean I favour the opposite. You seem to only like black and white in a grey science of psychology. So if you fail a less than ideal not 100% valid test then the opposite (the black to the white) is the case? No sorry now you're playing in the much maligned non agreed upon by any means null hypothesis - which in this area of study is a disaster area.

I have no problem with one who supports and "will go with" Double Blind testing here because some correlative evidence is better than nothing(which you are right to say sighted largely, though not entirely without merrit as you would assume, is). Correlational sighted independant observation is less useful but not worthless depending on the issue. It is used by the "court of Psychology." And whether you like it or not, all testing on human beings falls within THIS court and no other court...highest court is Psychology and Statistics. A DBT is an information gathering tool to create correlational informtion within the test environment.

What I personally use it for is to realize that HUGE difference people claim to be HUGE differences are not as claimed when in a DBT test where the HUGE difference can't be heard anymore..This is useful when Cable guru's try and tell me a cable makes more difference than a set of speakers....and well no obviously that is not the case...no difference...no one on the planet in different sets of environments? The stats are perfectly truthful, test is perfectly valid? No sorry nice try - still results in FAITH in the numbers. Faith is like a Religion - no thank you.

[mtrycraft]

The court of science...a buch of people that happen to agree on something...a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it a fact unless it is a proven 100% fact..

Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.

[RGA]

Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.

DBT does not prove A=B show me in which Psychology testbook it say it? None I know.

Show me a Psychology test using DBT, any of them, where at the end of the test is does not have weasal words sentences such as More tests are necessary...any subject on anything in Psychology...go find it and show me where. On audio would be better none? I know. Keep it to psych tests with APA standards not the drivel you sespouse from the engineers - wrong irreleveant field.

APA or you have NOTHING...period. Show us any?

Still have not provided definition of validity - you have reliability do you even know what the term means - Enginners didn't study it obviously which is why they are not scientists.

DBT results are within the testing environment...Yes nothing is 100% but DBT is not 50% or 10% or anything much at all by itself unless the test is VALID otherwise it's as useless as a sighted test...it's actually dangerous because at least sighted listening you can ignore as grain of salt opinion...poor science in the guise of real science is dangerous...all those fat Americans on scientifically proven low fat diets - science was dead wrong and people died. And now they're all covering their ass saying it was to save the animals and other such drivel.

The FACT is you cannot know if the Sony Brand X will sound the same as Pioneer brand Y ---you often say don't bother no one can tell the difference...every timne you are doing that you make an uninformed assumption...Unless you have a test of the specific componant with that specific person you are guessing - no matter how much correaltion of invalid tests you espouse.

100% fact of determining validity...is your test 100% valid - is it even remotely close...no to the first question and obviously no to the latter...faith in your guesses, faith in the statistics...is still faith.

[300A]

Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.

Really? Then give one study that concludes its results are "FACT". You can't. And if you could, that "fact" would only be in that study, not in the real world, where there are other variables.

And correllated results don't prove anything. Same mistakes, assumptions will lead to the same/bad conclusions. You can't assume anything when doing studies.

How many medical studies have recently been found to be wrong? And this isn't audio subjective testing.

I hope you are honest, even if wrong, and aren't intentionally trying to mislead people.

[newbsterv2]

From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.

Multi thousand dollar amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/

$650 Amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/

This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!

[RGA]

From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.

Multi thousand dollar amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/

$650 Amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/

This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!

that argument is not valid because measurements are skewed by the people who make and want to SELL you the equipment they can build at far reduced cost to them but not far reduced costs to the buyer.

Tube amplifiers have a subjectively superior form of even order distortion when it does distort.

Stereophile's latest issue measured a tube amplifer which is claimed to be more linear than any solid state amplifier ever built or some such argument.

There have been amps subjectively preferred that had 80% distortion according to UHF. Distortion that doesn't just hack off notes and create some resmblence of the initial signal is prefferred by many and not preferred by many.

Generally most people prefer the type of distrotion exhibited by tube amplifiers which is why so many people who own the likes of Krell and Bryston dump them for tube amplifiers and not very many you will find ever go the other way. Funny thing that is - people don't like to be nausiated by fatiguing bright systems.

[newbsterv2]

that argument is not valid because measurements are skewed by the people who make and want to SELL you the equipment they can build at far reduced cost to them but not far reduced costs to the buyer.

Tube amplifiers have a subjectively superior form of even order distortion when it does distort.

Stereophile's latest issue measured a tube amplifer which is claimed to be more linear than any solid state amplifier ever built or some such argument.

There have been amps subjectively preferred that had 80% distortion according to UHF. Distortion that doesn't just hack off notes and create some resmblence of the initial signal is prefferred by many and not preferred by many.

Generally most people prefer the type of distrotion exhibited by tube amplifiers which is why so many people who own the likes of Krell and Bryston dump them for tube amplifiers and not very many you will find ever go the other way. Funny thing that is - people don't like to be nausiated by fatiguing bright systems.

The Anthem amp isn't clipping off any notes 100W on down. We can argue about clipping all day long but if your system has enough power and the speakers are efficient enough then the amp shouldn't clip. I'll agree that when most SS amps are driven overboard they square off the waveform making the music unlistenable. I don't know about you but my SS amp doesn't even come close to doing that.

[300A]

The problem is that most studied tests in controlled environment have some correlation in real world listening environments...and we can go on ad nauseum about the tests forever, but the test environment is not the same(identical) to a non test environment...and there is no coreelation between the two but a lot of assumptions and innuendo as to what the result of a test says and what the real world says. Floyd Toole's also notes that these are results for the test environment not a real world environment. DBT's have shown that within the testing environment and the controls set-up - people have failed to distinguish differences to a statistically significant level better than chance.

That is ALL there is on the subject...Innuendo by the uninformed beyond this is why Americans got fat eating low fat diets for 30 years instead of following the once maligned now considered food God Dr. Atkins. The body of sicence was wrong because they took short cuts and made ASSUMPTIONS with having ALL the facts. Audio may not be the same...but there are certainly ASSUMPTIONS. There are two terms about testing Reliability which reproduces the same results over and over so we can reliably predict what is going to happen in a test involving trials. Then there is validitiy...how does what is being tested directly relate to that of reality. If a stereo is designed to provide long term musical enjoyment in one's home - then how valid is a test not set-up to that goal? Vague yes...but lots of bad tests have reliability, validity is the most important and of the two MORE important than reliability. You'd need both. Problem is that the direct problem is that normal listening is sighted, which is contradictory to what a DBT demands...it is this that causes "some" of the confusion and bickering. Nothing wrong with Double Blind tests - The complete story not according to psychologists or statisticians - the complete story to engineers? pick your field.

"The problem is that most studied tests in controlled environment have some correlation in real world listening environments..."

If so, the question becomes how much, what aspects, etc of the real world. Without concrete answers, the testing is again basically worthless. Nothing more than guessing again. Even how the "stereo" is setup could make a difference in the results.

It is obvious crafts doesn't know much about electronics as he didn't understand how DA and DF manifest themselves, thinking it would be measured by a harmonic distortion analyzer.

With this backround, he is obviously in the phycho camp and claims EEs aren't experts in DBT testing. It is also evident that phychos don't understand electronics like EEs do, and therefore do not understand that simply setting up a stereo for a DBT test could easily invalidate the testing.

[RGA]

300a

The reason there is debate about DBT actually has nothing to do with the DBT itself. No one denies the result. The debate is over the validity of the test outside the test environment and to it's degree of relevancy. The definitions of Validity are in Psych and Statistics textbooks. There are arguments over them, there are arguments over null hypothesis etc. In other words you have professional scientists in the field that don't agree...that is hardly the "court of science" who all agree as some suggest. That is simply not so. The fact that 75 out of 100 scientists agree on something does not mean they're correct...it's not a democracy of thought. Maybe the 25% were the smeart ones who got A's and the other 75 are scientific dim wits who mass in numbers rather than original thought. In the end there are far too many maybe's going on.

While I have reservations and ANY good scientist relying on DBT's should have reservations they are not there for no reason. They serve to help us at LEAST a little bit. For instance I walked into my local big box chain and the salesman said he had $800.00CDN monster cables that he connected up to his 20 year old speakers and he claims it made more of a difference than buying a new set of $800.00speakers. It is these claims that can dupe the unsuspecting. For instance if he had 20 year old bare wire(which he said he did) then ANY new speaker cable would likely make a difference over oxidized wire(and the bigger guage and tighter connection to the speaker).

And it is here where we need a smeblance of reality. I hear the claim that a interconnect or speaker cable makes dramatic differences more than speakers etc...and this is just nonsense in my opinion. I can't rove it's nonsense...so the temptation is to use a double blind test...but it would be hypocritical to use one when I liked to use one and diss them when I don't like them. But they do help to stop exagerrated claims.

If i claim that a cable makes a "night and day difference" and that I can tell the difference between a wire using silver or copper with bang on accuracy...then a basic DBT ois going to show me that in fact I can't tell the difference as accurately as I thought or accurately at all. Then enter the null hypothesis debate if you fail the test then there is no difference...well no in fact it migt mean that it might also mean that the differences are small and the listener is unable to do it statistically well - but it may in fact be there. All of this is why I don't rule it out.

If it measures differently in the audible spectrum, then theoreticlly it can be heard given enough time if only on a subconscious level. Psychologists still don't know wat >80% of our brain SPECIFICALLY does and this includes interpretation of incoming senses from the ear. But if you rely strictly on DBT's that are not wholly valid for your research on what the ear/brain can do...well chances are you're not a brain researcher or a psychologist...and then what you say is irrelevant becasue that is like asking a culinary arts student about the big bang theory. I don't get my knee operated on by an engineering student do you?

[RGA]

The Anthem amp isn't clipping off any notes 100W on down. We can argue about clipping all day long but if your system has enough power and the speakers are efficient enough then the amp shouldn't clip. I'll agree that when most SS amps are driven overboard they square off the waveform making the music unlistenable. I don't know about you but my SS amp doesn't even come close to doing that.

But we're looking at distortion measured at full power...You can buy a sub $1000.00 Antique Sound Labs AQ1003DT at full power will have a rating of 3%. Bad by SS standards but unheard and more pleasing at full power than the solid stater clipping at full power. The resto fo the time the amp is aroun 1%(unheard).

No one is arguing the numbers that Solid State manufacturers measure. They measure those things that make their products look better to the unsuspecting. Wow and Flutter on cd players for instance are FAR superior to turntables and so it would be prominant on the spec sheet to get consumers to buy cd players rather than a tape deck or turntable. The fact that Wow and flutter has next to nothing to do with cd players and Jitter numbers are totally left off is not surprising. One can argue the merrits of audibility of jitter but it is there in the audible spectrum and many are unflattering numbers. In a sense the number that matters is left off.

Where is linearity of Solid state amps? Why were older SS amps showing distortion etc at full power when that was where they performed their best? At lower volumes they sounded far worse...but you never saw normal listening levels. Tubes at full power get worse than at normal levels. So the numbers get skewed to making one look better than the other(or a lot of half truths).

I'm not a tube guru by any stretch, btw. My 2 favorite integrated amps under $2500.00 are SS amps. Depending on the speakers though, tubes can sound very good and plenty of others leave their Brystons, Krell, Levinsons, for tube amps.

Interestingly the Anthem Amp 1 is a tube power amp that is considered by many including me to be superior in sound to their solid state cousins. If however you need a LOT of power then 40Watts or so may not be enough...but usually 40 Watts is more than enough to drive 95% of the speakers on the current market.

I'm not saying one should buy tubes over solid state, not at all, but people do "LIKE" current tube amps better often times than similarly priced SS amps. One can say the SS has better numbers great...but better "sound" is wht I care about whether it be a tube or SS or a hybrid of the two or neither one of the two(Sugden's headmaster is neither tube nor ss).

[300A]

From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.

Multi thousand dollar amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/

$650 Amp

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/

This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!

I agree that the tube amp isn't very good in my opinion. But there is more to the story than the simple measurements told. Let me discuss some better designs and some problems with SS amps.

First, the distortion of the tube amp may be less than SS amps at one watt. One watt is what one uses most of the time. Transients can easily clip even a 100 watt amp, although the 'idiot" lights usually show the average. A tube amp may only have .005% distortion at one watt, while the SS amp may still have .02% or even higher at one watt.

Secondly, if the SS amp clips by only a watt or two, the distortion may rise to 10%.

Thirdly, the order of distortion makes a difference, and is noticed inversely as the order is increased. Thus 5th order is worse than 3 order, and 9th order is even worse than 5th order.

Next we have distortion caused by global feedback, which gives the low distortion figure using a simple sine wave. A simple sine wave, when fedback will result in a simple sinewave, even if it takes time to feed through the amp and then is fed back. The phase may be changed, but the distortion analyzer won't register this problem.

Music is complex with lots of different frequencies and their natural harmonics. The time it takes for the complex signal to feed through the amp and then feed back to the input doesn't coincide with the original input signal. By the time the input signal arrives at the output and is fedback, the input signal has changed. The higher the frequency, the more pronounced this problem is. But harmonic distortion is measured using a simple sinewave, not a complex signal, thus is useless when measuring this kind of distortion. And harmonic distortion figures are better with global feedback, even if they don't simulate real music.

Another problem is that frequency response can be artifically inflated when global negative feedback is used. You would be surprised how limited the frequency response is without feedback in many SS amps. However, the more feedback because of poor open loop response, the more "timing" problems you have.

So the specs given don't tell the whole story, actually not much of the story.

[newbsterv2]

But we're looking at distortion measured at full power...You can buy a sub $1000.00 Antique Sound Labs AQ1003DT at full power will have a rating of 3%. Bad by SS standards but unheard and more pleasing at full power than the solid stater clipping at full power. The resto fo the time the amp is aroun 1%(unheard).

No one is arguing the numbers that Solid State manufacturers measure. They measure those things that make their products look better to the unsuspecting. Wow and Flutter on cd players for instance are FAR superior to turntables and so it would be prominant on the spec sheet to get consumers to buy cd players rather than a tape deck or turntable. The fact that Wow and flutter has next to nothing to do with cd players and Jitter numbers are totally left off is not surprising. One can argue the merrits of audibility of jitter but it is there in the audible spectrum and many are unflattering numbers. In a sense the number that matters is left off.

Where is linearity of Solid state amps? Why were older SS amps showing distortion etc at full power when that was where they performed their best? At lower volumes they sounded far worse...but you never saw normal listening levels. Tubes at full power get worse than at normal levels. So the numbers get skewed to making one look better than the other(or a lot of half truths).

I'm not a tube guru by any stretch, btw. My 2 favorite integrated amps under $2500.00 are SS amps. Depending on the speakers though, tubes can sound very good and plenty of others leave their Brystons, Krell, Levinsons, for tube amps.

Interestingly the Anthem Amp 1 is a tube power amp that is considered by many including me to be superior in sound to their solid state cousins. If however you need a LOT of power then 40Watts or so may not be enough...but usually 40 Watts is more than enough to drive 95% of the speakers on the current market.

I'm not saying one should buy tubes over solid state, not at all, but people do "LIKE" current tube amps better often times than similarly priced SS amps. One can say the SS has better numbers great...but better "sound" is wht I care about whether it be a tube or SS or a hybrid of the two or neither one of the two(Sugden's headmaster is neither tube nor ss).

But how do you know that 1% distortion is not audible and that figure is better than the Anthem amp? The ASL 1003 is going to generate odd order harmonic distortion as well isn't it? Unless it's a SET it will. It all boild down to this. Any well designed system will never have to go into clipping. I totally agree that when a SS amp clips it sounds horrible. But when it's NOT clipping it's transparent, linear, and clean sounding. Exactly what an amp should do. Nothing except amplify. I've heard many different speakers and that's where the problem usually lies. Prominent treble. Thin bass. I say fix the problem at the source! I look at it this way RGA. All the way up to the speaker we're dealing with a 2 dimensional signal. Amplitude vs. Time. There's no reason engineers should screw that up. Speakers are different. They have to take a 2D signal and make it live and breathe. Anyway my $0.02. Peace

[300A]

But how do you know that 1% distortion is not audible and that figure is better than the Anthem amp? The ASL 1003 is going to generate odd order harmonic distortion as well isn't it? Unless it's a SET it will. It all boild down to this. Any well designed system will never have to go into clipping. I totally agree that when a SS amp clips it sounds horrible. But when it's NOT clipping it's transparent, linear, and clean sounding. Exactly what an amp should do. Nothing except amplify. I've heard many different speakers and that's where the problem usually lies. Prominent treble. Thin bass. I say fix the problem at the source! I look at it this way RGA. All the way up to the speaker we're dealing with a 2 dimensional signal. Amplitude vs. Time. There's no reason engineers should screw that up. Speakers are different. They have to take a 2D signal and make it live and breathe. Anyway my $0.02. Peace

It is true SETs produce more distortion than just about any other type of amplifier. That is why I recently changed to PP tube amps. A good one will have only a little 2nd, third, and fourth, and fifth. SS will go up to who knows how high. SETs also go way.

I disagree that no well designed system clips. If you listen at one watt, with a CD player and 90db speakers, you are most likely clipping unless you have hundreds if not thousands of watts or your music just doesn't have any dynamics.

Amplitude vs time is simply explained in my above post. There are real headaches with global feedback. Feedback actually changes the input signal waveform, thus fidelity. The amount depends on how wide the open bandwidth is of the amp before feedback is applied. The wider the open bandwidth is, the faster the signal travels through the circuit.

There are other problems I have read about too, but the post is getting too long.

Peace.

[newbsterv2]

I agree that the tube amp isn't very good in my opinion. But there is more to the story than the simple measurements told. Let me discuss some better designs and some problems with SS amps.

First, the distortion of the tube amp may be less than SS amps at one watt. One watt is what one uses most of the time. Transients can easily clip even a 100 watt amp, although the 'idiot" lights usually show the average. A tube amp may only have .005% distortion at one watt, while the SS amp may still have .02% or even higher at one watt.

Secondly, if the SS amp clips by only a watt or two, the distortion may rise to 10%.

Thirdly, the order of distortion makes a difference, and is noticed inversely as the order is increased. Thus 5th order is worse than 3 order, and 9th order is even worse than 5th order.

Next we have distortion caused by global feedback, which gives the low distortion figure using a simple sine wave. A simple sine wave, when fedback will result in a simple sinewave, even if it takes time to feed through the amp and then is fed back. The phase may be changed, but the distortion analyzer won't register this problem.

Music is complex with lots of different frequencies and their natural harmonics. The time it takes for the complex signal to feed through the amp and then feed back to the input doesn't coincide with the original input signal. By the time the input signal arrives at the output and is fedback, the input signal has changed. The higher the frequency, the more pronounced this problem is. But harmonic distortion is measured using a simple sinewave, not a complex signal, thus is useless when measuring this kind of distortion. And harmonic distortion figures are better with global feedback, even if they don't simulate real music.

Another problem is that frequency response can be artifically inflated when global negative feedback is used. You would be surprised how limited the frequency response is without feedback in many SS amps. However, the more feedback because of poor open loop response, the more "timing" problems you have.

So the specs given don't tell the whole story, actually not much of the story.

Most of the tests done by reputable reviewers run a square wave through the amplifier. Is it incorrect to assume that an amplifier that is passing a sqaure wave intact with no ringing is also playing all frequencies evenly across the audible sprectrum? And as far as the phase distortions you claim are utter nonsense. Do you realise what kind of phase shifts even the best of speakers have? Frequency response is what is important. Even a 1st order x-over is going to have a 90 degree shift. It's very simple. An amplifier with zero feedback is going to have extremely soft bass and a rolled off treble. If you like tube amps that's no problem. But please don't try and tell me that from an engineering standpoint that tubes are superior.

[300A]

Most of the tests done by reputable reviewers run a square wave through the amplifier. Is it incorrect to assume that an amplifier that is passing a sqaure wave intact with no ringing is also playing all frequencies evenly across the audible sprectrum? And as far as the phase distortions you claim are utter nonsense. Do you realise what kind of phase shifts even the best of speakers have? Frequency response is what is important. Even a 1st order x-over is going to have a 90 degree shift. It's very simple. An amplifier with zero feedback is going to have extremely soft bass and a rolled off treble. If you like tube amps that's no problem. But please don't try and tell me that from an engineering standpoint that tubes are superior.

I guess the first, and last comment I will make is to listen to a well designed tube amp with a properly matched speaker system. Much more inner detail, no black zone behind the instruments, no grunge, no harshness/zing in the highs, no brittleness when cymbals clash. Truly natural sound.

True, some use square waves to look at the phase response, but we are looking at the basic "fundamental" waveform, not what happens down to the noise floor, which a scope won't display.

If we want to check the basic response to, say 50khz, we need a square wave to only about 5khz as this will give us the phase response to 50khz. 2khz if we only want to see the phase response at 20khz.
Good tube designs give better, more natual highs than SS ever will. I don't think you have ever listened to a good tube amp or preamp.

"An amplifier with zero feedback is going to have extremely soft bass and a rolled off treble."

I don't know where you got this idea, but it is false in many tube designs. I see tube amps with responses to 80khz and more, so the highs are there.

As far as soft sounding bass, it depends on the speaker, the power supply design, and parts quality. Electrolytics "loosen" the bass because they don't charge and discharge properly.

Most speakers made nowadays, for SS amps, need low output Z amps because speakers are not damped properly. They underdamp them so the response goes lower and need high damping to quell the boom. A properly designed speaker, they are out there, doesn't need a low output Z as it is self damping.

One can do a simple battery test on ones own speaker by, first disconnecting the amp, and simply switching on a 1.5 volt battery across the speaker and then switching it off (open load on the speaker when switched off). The woofer should give the same clicking sound when connecting and disconnecting the battery. But what you will usually find is a "click" when the battery is connected and a thud or boom when disconnected, a sure sign the box isn't designed properly for the driver.

As far as speaker crossovers are concerned, many now use phase correction to limit this problem. But the caps are often times worse than the cure. Go figure.

Yes, there are alot of poor tube amps out there that have limited frequency response, high distortion, and claiming the "midrange" magic. But I have come to dislike those, just like you do. They miss so much of the music that one aspect won't cover all the losses from other areas of the music. So now I listen to PP amps.

I guess the last comment I will make is to listen to a well designed tube amp with a properly matched speaker system.

[RGA]

I guess the first, and last comment I will make is to listen to a well designed tube amp with a properly matched speaker system. Much more inner detail, no black zone behind the instruments, no grunge, no harshness/zing in the highs, no brittleness when cymbals clash. Truly natural sound.

True, some use square waves to look at the phase response, but we are looking at the basic "fundamental" waveform, not what happens down to the noise floor, which a scope won't display.

If we want to check the basic response to, say 50khz, we need a square wave to only about 5khz as this will give us the phase response to 50khz. 2khz if we only want to see the phase response at 20khz.
Good tube designs give better, more natual highs than SS ever will. I don't think you have ever listened to a good tube amp or preamp.

"An amplifier with zero feedback is going to have extremely soft bass and a rolled off treble."

I don't know where you got this idea, but it is false in many tube designs. I see tube amps with responses to 80khz and more, so the highs are there.

As far as soft sounding bass, it depends on the speaker, the power supply design, and parts quality. Electrolytics "loosen" the bass because they don't charge and discharge properly.

Most speakers made nowadays, for SS amps, need low output Z amps because speakers are not damped properly. They underdamp them so the response goes lower and need high damping to quell the boom. A properly designed speaker, they are out there, doesn't need a low output Z as it is self damping.

One can do a simple battery test on ones own speaker by, first disconnecting the amp, and simply switching on a 1.5 volt battery across the speaker and then switching it off (open load on the speaker when switched off). The woofer should give the same clicking sound when connecting and disconnecting the battery. But what you will usually find is a "click" when the battery is connected and a thud or boom when disconnected, a sure sign the box isn't designed properly for the driver.

As far as speaker crossovers are concerned, many now use phase correction to limit this problem. But the caps are often times worse than the cure. Go figure.

Yes, there are alot of poor tube amps out there that have limited frequency response, high distortion, and claiming the "midrange" magic. But I have come to dislike those, just like you do. They miss so much of the music that one aspect won't cover all the losses from other areas of the music. So now I listen to PP amps.

I guess the last comment I will make is to listen to a well designed tube amp with a properly matched speaker system.

Basically I think people need to get out of their house and out of their chair reading books and go and listen.

One of the best set-ups I have ever heard for sane money was my speakers connected to the SET soro integrated amp(~11watts) with AN cd player. Set-up properly I'd run this set-up against any system you care to name at double the money. Which is why the heck I bought the speakers after four long years of trying to find something. Since the AN system with its set amp will put out more bass response than any other standmount I have heard and presents an easy load and high sensitivity the fact that that the amp can't reach 2hz is irrelvant since speakers don't hit down there.

It is about system matching and if you've tuned your speaker for such amplifiers you're not going to have problems. The AN's use almost no damping in their speakers because the box itself is part of the sound, one reason that their loorstanding AN E produces deeper and more realistic bass at a list price of ~2500.00(assuming it sounds 80% as good as the same designed better parts AN E Sec) than the N801 at more than $10,000.00 even with Bryston Monoblocks with their 1000 watts.

This is not to say youwon't want or even NEED Bryston amps(I like them myself very much), but it is not required to get good sound. I run my Audio Notes with a non tube amp. Incidentally I bought the amp over the old AQ1003DT tube amp(though I never heard the AQ1003 with my speakers as they had sold their demo amp and I already had the Sugden by then). Still for the CDM 1NT and the Studio 100 the Sugden was better largely because of the bass response, and largely because these speakers have harder to drive dips etc. The AN Soro SET stomps my amp however. That is unfortunate, it may not loo technically as pretty as some graphs might state...but sound wise you'd have to be deaf not to know which one presents life from 2d and the one that merely gives you a sense of soemthing more than 2d. Unfortunately the Soro also has a price tag for "life" that is well beyond my current means. And the Sugden is a valve like ss amp. Intereting how so many ss amps like to try and create the tube sound. Those engineers seem to know where the best sound is, so they attempt to emulate it. Even Bryston's B60R has made an attempt to 'tube up" their high frequencies in the reviews I've been reading on them.

And now McIntosh's top end gear is no less than tube gear. They switched because of insensitive lousy speakers, now that speaker makers have gone to H/T they have made thier speakers easier to drive because their faced with terrible receivers as amplifiers. So in a way hme theater has made speakers easier to drive so tube amps and low powered class a solid state amps can come back and start selling.

In the end There are good and bad examples of both. As for power amps I would probably prefer a Solid state unit. Integrated's it depends and preamps probably a tube. The reason I would take a SS power amp is that if you own speakers that are power suckers they probably were not built for tube amps. Chances are I would not want the power sucker speaker - Heavy damping damps out the life of the music IMO just from the speakers I have heard. Maybe exceptions.

[300A]

Basically I think people need to get out of their house and out of their chair reading books and go and listen.

One of the best set-ups I have ever heard for sane money was my speakers connected to the SET soro integrated amp(~11watts) with AN cd player. Set-up properly I'd run this set-up against any system you care to name at double the money. Which is why the heck I bought the speakers after four long years of trying to find something. Since the AN system with its set amp will put out more bass response than any other standmount I have heard and presents an easy load and high sensitivity the fact that that the amp can't reach 2hz is irrelvant since speakers don't hit down there.

It is about system matching and if you've tuned your speaker for such amplifiers you're not going to have problems. The AN's use almost no damping in their speakers because the box itself is part of the sound, one reason that their loorstanding AN E produces deeper and more realistic bass at a list price of ~2500.00(assuming it sounds 80% as good as the same designed better parts AN E Sec) than the N801 at more than $10,000.00 even with Bryston Monoblocks with their 1000 watts.

This is not to say youwon't want or even NEED Bryston amps(I like them myself very much), but it is not required to get good sound. I run my Audio Notes with a non tube amp. Incidentally I bought the amp over the old AQ1003DT tube amp(though I never heard the AQ1003 with my speakers as they had sold their demo amp and I already had the Sugden by then). Still for the CDM 1NT and the Studio 100 the Sugden was better largely because of the bass response, and largely because these speakers have harder to drive dips etc. The AN Soro SET stomps my amp however. That is unfortunate, it may not loo technically as pretty as some graphs might state...but sound wise you'd have to be deaf not to know which one presents life from 2d and the one that merely gives you a sense of soemthing more than 2d. Unfortunately the Soro also has a price tag for "life" that is well beyond my current means. And the Sugden is a valve like ss amp. Intereting how so many ss amps like to try and create the tube sound. Those engineers seem to know where the best sound is, so they attempt to emulate it. Even Bryston's B60R has made an attempt to 'tube up" their high frequencies in the reviews I've been reading on them.

And now McIntosh's top end gear is no less than tube gear. They switched because of insensitive lousy speakers, now that speaker makers have gone to H/T they have made thier speakers easier to drive because their faced with terrible receivers as amplifiers. So in a way hme theater has made speakers easier to drive so tube amps and low powered class a solid state amps can come back and start selling.

In the end There are good and bad examples of both. As for power amps I would probably prefer a Solid state unit. Integrated's it depends and preamps probably a tube. The reason I would take a SS power amp is that if you own speakers that are power suckers they probably were not built for tube amps. Chances are I would not want the power sucker speaker - Heavy damping damps out the life of the music IMO just from the speakers I have heard. Maybe exceptions.

I am glad some companies are building easier to drive speakers. I disagree that just matching components will necessarily yield the best sounding system in the world. It works up to a point. Simply put, it takes the best of all, and matched, to sound the best. As an extreme example, a $500 amp isn't going to be the best system in the world no matter which speaker is used. I sometimes think too much is made of synergy, although it certainly does help at any given price point.

I have changed my views on amps recently as I have heard two systems, one with tube preamp and SS amp, and the other a tube preamp and tube PP amp, and both were decisively better than all the SET amps I have ever heard. Both systems had more "magic" and sonic honesty in the midrange, but also had the complete package of bass and highs. The wattages were, I believe, 250 watts and 25 watts respectively. I think small amps and high efficiency speakers will soon be a thing of the past, except for those, of course, who can't afford these amps and who still want reasonable fidelity at a low cost. But they certainly aren't the best by a long shot from what I have recently heard.

[92135011]

I suppose the biggest problem with gear like amplifier types, it is hard to test since what happens theoretically isnt what happens in the real world. The articles posted ran tests in hypothetical situations. I know the tube vs SS debate is very heated everywhere in the audio world.

Audionote says transistor amps are not nearly superior to any form of valve, while class A amp companies claim thier goods provide less distortion, etc than tube could ever accomplish.

Then, of course, we have people who say that they cant stand the artificial SS sound and others who claim that tube users are just part of the hype for retro.

Hey! this sounds a lot like the Mac vs PC debate! I used to use PC, but now I'm a Mac user. I came to the conclusion that PC is not better than Mac or vice versa. It is just merely different. For those PC people ouit there who bash Mac, please try them out yourself before you do so. The most popular comment of why Mac is worse is usually "They are weird." Which is a meaningless explanation.

Tube and SS is the same. HiFi is the final reproduction of music in a way that resembles a live preformance. What's most important is our cognitive functions when listening. If you indeed feel that triode amps are a waste of time, then that will definately have an effect on the actual sound perceived, no matter you compare back to back or not. That's why it's not very good for first time audio buyers to log on forums like this one to get opinions. That only leads people to have a predisposed opinion based on other's opinions. (I'm guilty of the same thing)

One more thing. A 500 bux amp will sound like the best thing in the world if you think it does. Some people are not so fortunate to afford high end gear (like me). I think people have to get off how much they can improve on their gear and start to be positive about things. Lets just face it everyone. Nothing is ever the best. There is and will always be something better. If you bought a 500 bux amp and it excites you, then I think you may be happier than the guy who just spent 20k on some gear that he thinks could be better. Time to spend less time thinking about upgrading and time to spend some time thing about how to enjoy the gear. Remember, we all buy this stuff to enjoy. I cant afford the best in the world, but I'm sure I will enjoy it and that's what is really important.

[RGA]

92135011

Look all companies claim lots of things. SS is easier and cheaper to make - more profit margin. Naturally companies are going to hire people willing to spout whatever the company wants them to spout in order to help SELL something no matter how crappy to convince you it's better. Bose has been artful at the process and so have solid state manufacturers. Since the 25 Watt Sugden A21a will drive all but the most insanely difficult speakers why do you see Sony receivers with a tag line of 1040 watts? Sales. The sound is so crappy they have to sell numbers, graphs, stats, blinking lights, 50 different versions of a surround mode none of which sound good with 2 channel music.

You go out and listen to some of the best representations of both philosophies. Generally speaking, you will find most people who move from "High End" Solid Sstate to "HIGH END" tube amplifiers never ever go back and it's not all because tubes look cool. A lot of them don't even show the tubes - like most Audio Note amplifiers.

Chances are you'll buy into whatever system sounds best to you. I'm willing to give Audio note the benefit of the doubt on their designs because their speaker IMO outclasses every other speaker by all the heavily advertised marketing first companies. Listening to their complete system was the most musically satisfying experiences I have had listening to home audio. And the Audio Note set-up at 40k was less than 1/3 the price of some set-ups I have heard. On a componants individual basis they may not be up to par with similar componants in different set-ups...but then they're not really meant for different set-ups. The are meant as mirror image componants for their other componants. You don't have one 18 inch wheel with three 14 inch wheels when you drive.

The SET amp may sound utterly atrocious for all I know with different gear...but the SET amp I heard with their system had none of what I would have expected from a SET amp. If that's a SET amp then people who say there is no bass no highs and loud hums and hisses and clicks and distortion are uninformed about what a good SET amp is all about. It's like saying Turntables suck because you had a $9.00 fisher price record player therefore ALL turntables are just as bad or the initial Van Morisson releases on CD sounded horrible so ALL cds and ALL cd players sound horrible.

Bottom line is I went and heard the supposedly terrible SETs...and if I was in the market The SET amp I heard with my particular speakers would be at the top of the list looking for someone to take the champ down...and I seriously doubt I would find one...at least not on a sonic level for sane money. If I owned Magnepans my opinion could be totally different where the SET would not make my top 200. http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp2.htm

[92135011]

RGA, that lemme ask you a question if I may.
I found some online thing that is an AN distributor for parts and stuff.
They are about to introduce some of the AN kits as well as other stuff to expand their business.
As you have read from other threads, I'm considering tube audio. I have heard that the AN sensitivity and comparitively flat impedence is great for tube amps, especially the lower powered SETs. How is the AN K you have serving you? If I buy I probably wont get the silver drivers and stuff since I probably dont wanna put out the cash.

Do you think it's safe that I build it myself?

[RGA]

Audio Note stopped selling Kits...their importer in the US however has re-introduced selling Kits. It makes sense because many High end stores are also repair depos...they can order and build the kits themselves which reduces a lot of Audio Note's costs. Since the speakers and amps etc are upgradeable especially tube products then it makes sense to sell them as kits.

I posted a review of my speakers at audioasylum http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?...48241&review=1

One reason you note as to why SET sounded so good is exactly because of the impedence. The K like the other don't dip under 5ohms over the entire audible band. The speaker offers a consistant tonal purity from top to bottom I have not heard from any other standmount other than Audio Note's bigger standmounts
They have much cheaper loudspeakers that are newer and are getting good reviews...doing a google search may help you on AZ TWO etc.
http://www.triodeandco.com/Prod_Loudspeakers.html


If you know what you're doing it is safe to build it yourself I should think...you should still listen before you buy...but if you like what you hear why not? Especially if it saves you money.

I bought last years model of the K spe which has grill cloths but not that neat veneer...but I had them nearly half off because the dealer in BC bought the entire world stock of last year's model at a discounted price. If you like what you hear you may want to give www.soundhounds.com an e-mail and ask if they have any left. $1500.00Cdn ~1100.00US. They had a deal on the E and J too I believe. But I bought them in November so they may be out of them...but you never know.

This page most reviews and descriptions of all their stuff. Stuff I will likely never afford...one disadvantage of listening to it is knowing what you're going to miss out on
http://www.swfm.com/audiofederation/...hip/audionote/

[92135011]

Thanks for the help RGA.
I wish i could try out those AN at soundhounds...but they are so far away as i have complained before...and they never return my emails! Its sorta annoying!

Your review is right on the money. I have been looking for speakers that dont have that "SSSSSS" on the tweeter! It annoys the hell outta me! especially when I play ANYTHING by DMB since the drummer likes goin heavy on the high hat.