-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Isn't that a question you should ask yourself, you made the original assertion that "amplifiers do not care about frequency.
You do not understand the graph nor seem to get the point, do you? The graph above is for an amplifier rated at 90Wpch, its distortion at 1W and 10W will be minimal however it still varies with frequency, at a dynamic peak it will output more power and distortion. Does this graph, Song Audio SA-300 (8Wpch), put things into perspective for you
What I find interestering about you is your seeming inability to tell the forest for the trees as well as your propensity for making blanket statements that are totally off the mark.
I understand the graph thatnk you - I see that the distortion rises in the lower frequencies very likely due to the tranformers they're using. SETS and tubes have higher distortion - I think everyone gets that. The forrest is the resulting sound quality - the trees is looking at compartmentalized aspects of measured results and drawing conclusions - and you know you're the latter - every post every thread.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Unfortunately so because folks keep revisiting old ground with the same old tired arguments.
So why do you keep posting to the same people making them? Pot see kettle.
-
Would a SS amp that is pure class A still only give half a sound wave?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
I leave markw to answer this in detail, I am open to correction here but contrary to common knowledge with most amplifiers, tube variety included, you do not get the choice, you get both even and odd order harmonics, now even harmonics may be higher in level in some designs e.g. single-ended circuits, but there is hardly ever a scenario where odd-order harmonics are totally absent, they come with the 'distortion' package.
The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Would a SS amp that is pure class A still only give half a sound wave?
If it is SE and doesn't use feedback - the Sugden A21a would be a Solid State exception and there may be others. The Sugden A21a (not the newer one the 1992osh model) was the first time I heard an amp that sounded quite a lot better than the other amps in the store - this was waaay back in Vancouver in the early mid 90's. But I was much more of a measurements follower and had Bryston at home and saving for it and eventually went with the highest reviewed affordable amplifier at the time - the Arcam Delta 290. It was the only amp in its budget to get Stereophile Class B and 5 stars in the British mags blah blah. So I trusted the ears of the experts and the measurements and left the A21a at the store.
The fact that it sounded so much better to actually listen to music on - well I had the graphs, the specs, the charts, the reviews, the name brand appeal by a much bigger maker - they sold more so they must be better. I was missing the forest for the trees - I was looking at all the technical arguments and all the outside influences to make a purchase of what actually sounded better in the room. Class A single ended no feedback - Solid State it can be done it's not done enough IMO. That is why the Sugden a21 is the longest running amplifier selling for over 40 years with better heat handling upgrades and cosmetics and ergonomic changes over the years and very few of those. The Arcam - long gone - they got their bucks asnd changed models once they went through the review circuit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent.
rw
:rolleyes: There you go again, forget Stereophile please tell, how does a Class A or AB amplifier cancel out odd-order harmonics? I am all ears
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I understand the graph thatnk you - I see that the distortion rises in the lower frequencies very likely due to the tranformers they're using. SETS and tubes have higher distortion - I think everyone gets that. The forrest is the resulting sound quality - the trees is looking at compartmentalized aspects of measured results and drawing conclusions - and you know you're the latter - every post every thread.
:rolleyes: I thought you just done saying tube amplifiers don't care about frequency but now just maybe not :rolleyes:, I for one am indifferent to your preferences, what irks me is the steady stream of blatantly wrong statements you espouse in support those preferences. :frown5:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
If it is SE and doesn't use feedback - the Sugden A21a would be a Solid State exception and there may be others. The Sugden A21a (not the newer one the 1992osh model) was the first time I heard an amp that sounded quite a lot better than the other amps in the store - this was waaay back in Vancouver in the early mid 90's. But I was much more of a measurements follower and had Bryston at home and saving for it and eventually went with the highest reviewed affordable amplifier at the time - the Arcam Delta 290. It was the only amp in its budget to get Stereophile Class B and 5 stars in the British mags blah blah. So I trusted the ears of the experts and the measurements and left the A21a at the store.
The fact that it sounded so much better to actually listen to music on - well I had the graphs, the specs, the charts, the reviews, the name brand appeal by a much bigger maker - they sold more so they must be better. I was missing the forest for the trees - I was looking at all the technical arguments and all the outside influences to make a purchase of what actually sounded better in the room. Class A single ended no feedback - Solid State it can be done it's not done enough IMO. That is why the Sugden a21 is the longest running amplifier selling for over 40 years with better heat handling upgrades and cosmetics and ergonomic changes over the years and very few of those. The Arcam - long gone - they got their bucks asnd changed models once they went through the review circuit.
I think you are saying that the use of feedback is more important (or at lease as important) as the class A. Is this something that is hard for SS to do? If not, then I'd expect more to try it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
:rolleyes: I thought you just done saying tube amplifier don't care about frequency but now just maybe not, I for one am indifferent to your preferences, what irks me is the steady stream of blatantly wrong statements you espouse in support those preferences. :frown5:
The amplifiers do distort more at the frequency extremes - or distort less within the frequency extrmes depending how you look at it. I do find it strange that it would - a frequency without a load should not matter to an amplifier. It simply takes the signal read from the preamp stage and makes those signal louder and it should treat them all the same. Putting a load on the amp is when it should distort - bass drivers present a harder load in general and will distort more than mid/treble drivers. What have I missed?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
... how does a Class A or AB amplifier cancel out odd-order harmonics? I am all ears
What does that have to do with my comments?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I think you are saying that the use of feedback is more important (or at lease as important) as the class A. Is this something that is hard for SS to do? If not, then I'd expect more to try it.
It's more expensive although the Sugden is under $3k so it should not be prohibitive. The tradeoff is a lack of power and heat - though pure Class A tends to run just as hot.
Measurements can be manipulated - I remember when I bought my first CD player that the CD industry was trying to kill off vinyl as fast as possible. They posted a Wowo and Flutter spec on the CD player like "beyond measurable or .000001 or whatever which destroyed the Wow and Flutter of any turntable (the fact that good tables have a wow and flutter lower than any human and most bats can detect is beside the point) - the number looked better.
The Sugden's measurements or any no negative feedback amp doesn't.
The bottom line my dealer noted to me - was simple. When they go to their home to listen to music what is it that they want to listen to. The technical arguments of distortion, frequency response, accuracy, neutrality, bass, treble, staging, IM distortion, Class A, B, A/B, T whether it has tubes, transformer types are all interesting isolated discussions.
People including me I'm as guilty as the next guy tend to stick a flag in a camp and then justify the position. My camp is right because the measurements are flat and have low distortion therefore it is accurate and the subjective experience is meaningless because I want what's on the disc. The alternate is they guy who just want to enjoy the music and have something "musical" and most of us are in between the two extremes - we want to know that is accuate but it also has to be musical.
And what I have learned is that no matter how much typing is done on a forum - you will NOT change the person's mindset on what he/she holds as the truth.
SET amps by far measure worse than any other amplification device. SET guys (I include the SS SET amps) know that - most of them grew up with the SS (The best measuring devices). If the SET was a "trick" that could seduce you over a short period the trick would come to an end and the person would dump the SET and move back to SS. So it's not a trick - it has to be that whatever goes on sounds more natural. It's tough for me to use the word accurate because the logic side of my brain says - well the measurements are not that great so it's not "accurate" according to the graph but the fact that it sounds more accurate in the subjective audition means that I have a problem wrestling with what I am reading on the page and experiencing.
This is no different than listening to a class A amp and a Class B receiver. You arguably chose the amplifier you chose based on a listening audition. Perhaps you have found a correlation over the years that Class A amps usually sound better than Class B or Class A/B types. The measurements don't support that but you hear it. Thus like it or not it causes a problem associating what you experience with what you read.
At the end of the day you have to live with the stuff. I hooked up an NAD, a Rotel, a Bryston, a Musical Fidelity and OTO and a Meishu to the AN E and played a relatively simple piece - forget conversations about full scale drums - just Jackson Browne on a Guitar live solo. The two tube amps let me hear more of the string had a three dimensional stage, sounded cleaner, had better decay. How the hell does that happen? If disotrtion was an issue then his voice would warble - I would hear fuzz or something truly off putting. Change the music and it's pretty much the same results across the genres. I could go with the science part of me and say despite what I am hearing I will trust the measurements. But I have to actually live with it and having the poor sounding but better measuring system sitting in the room in the better sounding "off" position is not something I want. Though it would be nice to be in the easy arguing position on internet forums.
Negative feedback class A http://stereophile.com/reference/70/
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You NEVER get a sense of three dimensional instruments or singers, the body is missing??? Please tell me you are kidding, so I don't think that you are off your rocker.
One of the very things I love about the Bryston 28BSST is that sense of three dimensionality you get when the recording allows it. Lateral imaging and sound stage depth are some of that amps strong suits, especially when you combine it with a speaker like the SC-V.
You are confusing lateral imaging and sound stage depth with the three-dimensional realism of each instrument or singer. I already pointed this out, but I guess you just missed it.
At any rate, yes, no ss amp can reproduce this sound as both JA and JV found in the lastest issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound. Here is a fuller quote from Valin:
"I don't mean perspectival (front-to-back, side-to-side) clarity, which is another Maggie strength. What I do mean is that the image of a voice or a violin coming off the 1.7s' screens can sound rather the way it would look if it were projected ONTO those screens. In other words, it can sound a bit flat and two-dimensional, particularily with solid-state electronics.
I talk about image volume in my ARC Reference 5 review (elsewhere in this issue), and it is not, inherently, one of the 1.7s' strenghts. The funny thing here is that these slightly flattened, seemingly 'projected' images don't want for natural richness of color or detail or power or even body, in the sense of natural tonal weight; they just don't seem as filled-out, as three-dimensional as voices and violins can sometimes sound with cone speakers. IT's RATHER AS IF YOU ARE GETTING A SLICE OFF THE FRONT OF THE INSTRUMENT INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.
There is a partial cure for this problem, however. Tubes. Particularly ARC tubes."
Without this added diminesional fullness, you never get the feeling that the singer or the instrument is IN your room.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
It's more expensive although the Sugden is under $3k so it should not be prohibitive. The tradeoff is a lack of power and heat - though pure Class A tends to run just as hot.
Measurements can be manipulated - I remember when I bought my first CD player that the CD industry was trying to kill off vinyl as fast as possible. They posted a Wowo and Flutter spec on the CD player like "beyond measurable or .000001 or whatever which destroyed the Wow and Flutter of any turntable (the fact that good tables have a wow and flutter lower than any human and most bats can detect is beside the point) - the number looked better.
The Sugden's measurements or any no negative feedback amp doesn't.
The bottom line my dealer noted to me - was simple. When they go to their home to listen to music what is it that they want to listen to. The technical arguments of distortion, frequency response, accuracy, neutrality, bass, treble, staging, IM distortion, Class A, B, A/B, T whether it has tubes, transformer types are all interesting isolated discussions.
People including me I'm as guilty as the next guy tend to stick a flag in a camp and then justify the position. My camp is right because the measurements are flat and have low distortion therefore it is accurate and the subjective experience is meaningless because I want what's on the disc. The alternate is they guy who just want to enjoy the music and have something "musical" and most of us are in between the two extremes - we want to know that is accuate but it also has to be musical.
And what I have learned is that no matter how much typing is done on a forum - you will NOT change the person's mindset on what he/she holds as the truth.
SET amps by far measure worse than any other amplification device. SET guys (I include the SS SET amps) know that - most of them grew up with the SS (The best measuring devices). If the SET was a "trick" that could seduce you over a short period the trick would come to an end and the person would dump the SET and move back to SS. So it's not a trick - it has to be that whatever goes on sounds more natural. It's tough for me to use the word accurate because the logic side of my brain says - well the measurements are not that great so it's not "accurate" according to the graph but the fact that it sounds more accurate in the subjective audition means that I have a problem wrestling with what I am reading on the page and experiencing.
This is no different than listening to a class A amp and a Class B receiver. You arguably chose the amplifier you chose based on a listening audition. Perhaps you have found a correlation over the years that Class A amps usually sound better than Class B or Class A/B types. The measurements don't support that but you hear it. Thus like it or not it causes a problem associating what you experience with what you read.
At the end of the day you have to live with the stuff. I hooked up an NAD, a Rotel, a Bryston, a Musical Fidelity and OTO and a Meishu to the AN E and played a relatively simple piece - forget conversations about full scale drums - just Jackson Browne on a Guitar live solo. The two tube amps let me hear more of the string had a three dimensional stage, sounded cleaner, had better decay. How the hell does that happen? If disotrtion was an issue then his voice would warble - I would hear fuzz or something truly off putting. Change the music and it's pretty much the same results across the genres. I could go with the science part of me and say despite what I am hearing I will trust the measurements. But I have to actually live with it and having the poor sounding but better measuring system sitting in the room in the better sounding "off" position is not something I want. Though it would be nice to be in the easy arguing position on internet forums.
Negative feedback class A http://stereophile.com/reference/70/
I agree that it would be better to have a system that sounds better (to me) than to have one that measures better. But, when I worked at the IBM Research center, I found that there is equipment that can hear and measure things far beyond what human ears can. It would make sense to me that there is a way to measure what good sound is. Maybe it’s not the same as “accurate” sound, but at least measurable in some way. Has anyone done research to find out what makes sound more enjoyable to the masses? (other than Bose that is)
-
Just want to make sure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
What does that have to do with my comments?
rw
Everything....I have just done saying that 'odd-order' harmonics always come with the distortion, to which your retort was
Quote:
The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent.
I am simply making sure that it is clear that odd-order harmonics are always present in the distortion exhibited by amplifiers, or do you disagree?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
I am simply making sure that it is clear that odd-order harmonics are always present in the distortion exhibited by amplifiers, or do you disagree?
I agree and will repeat what constitutes the difference: it is by degrees. The low frequency test found in SP does not provide a picture of what happens with the dynamic handling of higher frequency fundamentals especially in light of the greater reliance of NFB with most SS amps. NFB works great with bass tones. I voiced no concept of "canceling out" anything.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
The amplifiers do distort more at the frequency extremes - or distort less within the frequency extrmes depending how you look at it. I do find it strange that it would - a frequency without a load should not matter to an amplifier. It simply takes the signal read from the preamp stage and makes those signal louder and it should treat them all the same. Putting a load on the amp is when it should distort - bass drivers present a harder load in general and will distort more than mid/treble drivers.
:yikes: Most of what you've just written is a red herring
Quote:
What have I missed?
That your prior post(s) on the issue was plain wrong.
:idea:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I agree and will repeat what constitutes the difference: it is by degrees. The low frequency test found in SP does not provide a picture of what happens with the dynamic handling of higher frequency fundamentals especially in light of the greater reliance of NFB with most SS amps. NFB works great with bass tones. I voiced no concept of "canceling out" anything.
rw
Thanks for the clarification, IMO, SP low frequency test is a red herring in this discussion, as I have just done sayiing in another post, In many tube amps, distortion varies with frequency and output power, NFB reduces distortion at all frequencies not just bass frequencies. Consequently, its fair to note that NFB amplifiers have relatively higher distortion at all audio frequencies.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
NFB reduces distortion at all frequencies not just bass frequencies. Consequently, its fair to note that NFB amplifiers have relatively higher distortion at all audio frequencies.
The point is that the sins of using NFB are manifested most profoundly at the top. The result runs from a relatively benign sterility and flat perspective (McIntosh) to obnoxious hardness (Crown, older Bryston).
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I agree that it would be better to have a system that sounds better (to me) than to have one that measures better. But, when I worked at the IBM Research center, I found that there is equipment that can hear and measure things far beyond what human ears can. It would make sense to me that there is a way to measure what good sound is. Maybe it’s not the same as “accurate” sound, but at least measurable in some way. Has anyone done research to find out what makes sound more enjoyable to the masses? (other than Bose that is)
Actually there is an easy way to measure what is "perceived" as being good sound. Identify the pleasure center of the brain hook up the gear that shows you on a screen your brain (brain scan) listen to music on said systems and you will be able to see which system fires that section of the brain. I should think this would be fairly expensive and the audio hobby is not exactly a priority when the machines are used for oh say detecting Alzheimers. I believe a few studies were done on this but they're too few. They have been done on Stress aspects of Blind tests however which is why there has been a shift away on relying on them too much. Most of this is in the education field and why teachers tend to want to move away from putting too much stock in a students abilities on a test. You can know it and then lose it under "pressure" just as you might "hear it" and lose it under test.
-
tube fan; What JV is referring to is what I call the cardboard cutout effect. Sure there is depth but all of the individual images are like cardboard cutouts. That's why I use tubes on my ESL's.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Actually there is an easy way to measure what is "perceived" as being good sound. Identify the pleasure center of the brain hook up the gear that shows you on a screen your brain (brain scan) listen to music on said systems and you will be able to see which system fires that section of the brain. I should think this would be fairly expensive and the audio hobby is not exactly a priority when the machines are used for oh say detecting Alzheimers. I believe a few studies were done on this but they're too few. They have been done on Stress aspects of Blind tests however which is why there has been a shift away on relying on them too much. Most of this is in the education field and why teachers tend to want to move away from putting too much stock in a students abilities on a test. You can know it and then lose it under "pressure" just as you might "hear it" and lose it under test.
Someone in some Marketing field somewhere may have put it to good use already. I bet that it could be modified for about any field. It’s just a matter of tracking them down and cornering them. Talk about a double blind test. But then what would we have left to debate?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
tube fan; What JV is referring to is what I call the cardboard cutout effect. Sure there is depth but all of the individual images are like cardboard cutouts. That's why I use tubes on my ESL's.
BTW, I used to have a set of Mark IIIs (modified by VA). Do they compare well to today's tube amps?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
You are confusing lateral imaging and sound stage depth with the three-dimensional realism of each instrument or singer. I already pointed this out, but I guess you just missed it.
I don't think I missed anything but a bunch of esoteric mumbo jumbo. When audio engineers talk about three deminsionality, they are talking about the ability of a images to be projected widely(laterally) and with depth(which means both in front of the baffle of the speaker, and deep behind as well).
Quote:
At any rate, yes, no ss amp can reproduce this sound as both JA and JV found in the lastest issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound. Here is a fuller quote from Valin:
"I don't mean perspectival (front-to-back, side-to-side) clarity, which is another Maggie strength. What I do mean is that the image of a voice or a violin coming off the 1.7s' screens can sound rather the way it would look if it were projected ONTO those screens. In other words, it can sound a bit flat and two-dimensional, particularily with solid-state electronics.
This is exactly the esoteric BS that I was talking about. The very idea of talking about any projection onto a screen refers to the ability of the sound images that have depth, clearly a front to back perspective much like 3D video. What he was saying based on this has nothing to do with SS amps specifically, but what happens when a SS amp is paired with the 1.7, it can sound flat and two-deminsional. Notice he is commenting on the 1.7's, and he says WITH SS amps it can sound, not that all SS amps can sound a bit flat and two-deminsional. There is no way any smart reviewer would make such a definate analysis like this unless he was profoundly prejudiced against SS amps, which would make him a not so credible reviewer.
Quote:
I talk about image volume in my ARC Reference 5 review (elsewhere in this issue), and it is not, inherently, one of the 1.7s' strenghts. The funny thing here is that these slightly flattened, seemingly 'projected' images don't want for natural richness of color or detail or power or even body, in the sense of natural tonal weight; they just don't seem as filled-out, as three-dimensional as voices and violins can sometimes sound with cone speakers. IT's RATHER AS IF YOU ARE GETTING A SLICE OFF THE FRONT OF THE INSTRUMENT INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.
There is a partial cure for this problem, however. Tubes. Particularly ARC tubes."
Without this added diminesional fullness, you never get the feeling that the singer or the instrument is IN your room.
This is all just opinion, bias, and esoteric nonsense. This smacks of personal bias plain and simple, much like the title Realistic sound = tubes and analog.
I think you have already stated a preference for tubes and analog, but you have to keep in mind - your preferences are just yours. They are not scientific, transferable, not fact, but they are your opinion and you have a right to voice it. I also have a right to accept it for what it is - your personal opinion.
If tubes are so wonderful, how do you reconcile with a tubeless recording chain?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If tubes are so wonderful, how do you reconcile with a tubeless recording chain?
When the primary music delivery method is 128k MP3 and quality is largely irrelevant to the market at large, it is quite easy to reconcile the business model. Building a twenty-four channel board using Audio Research REF5 linestages would be both impractical and expensive. Which in no way addresses the "which is better" question.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
When the primary music delivery method is 128k MP3 and quality is largely irrelevant to the market at large, it is quite easy to reconcile the business model. Building a twenty-four channel board using Audio Research REF5 linestages would be both impractical and expensive. Which in no way addresses the "which is better" question.
rw
Since we don't mix for MP3, that is an irrelevant side issue, and this does not answer my question at all.
|