All transports are NOT the same

[Mr Peabody]

I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had. Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.

[mtrycraft]

I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports.

His evidence would be his word in this? Anything else? Perhaps he has an interest in telling you this silliness?

He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

See under level matched, DBT listeing? Did he offer any evidence?

Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had.

Yep, that is the initial supposition but evidence is more powerful.

Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.

That is understandible. Thinking is not evidence, again.

[skeptic]

"I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport."

Why? A jukebox is nothing more than a single disc transport with another machine to select which of the discs in its magazine will be played one at a time.

While it is true that the degree of rotational speed variation from ideal which we used to call wow and flutter but in a digital age we call jitter can vary, ALL of them are much worse than is needed for reproduction of audio or video signals. How is this overcome? By reclocking. The pulses for each data point must enter each cell of a buffer register within a certain time interval. When the register dumps each cell, its data is reclocked to conform to the timing of a quartz oscillator which is rock steady. If it fails to happen, the entire process breaks down and you won't get any music or picture at all. Therefore, reducing digital jitter in the transport doesn't result in a better digital data stream. This is one of the great advantages of the digital system of storage and retrieval of analog signals. It doesn't depend for quality on a super precision transport unit to play it back, it's independent of it as long as it meets the minimum requirements necessary for it to function at all. Your misconception is all based on the myth implied by many manufacturers that if you optimize every conceivable element in a system, each one will contribute to superior performance. Some elements are less important and some merely have to be present in any working form.

[RGA]

The best thing to do is go and listen - I compared a 300 disc Pioneer Elite changer versus a super expensive Wadia and Enlightend Audio Designs transport through a Cal Labs DAC and high end Bryston monoblocks and Martin Logan speakers. No one heard a difference even sighted. The dealer himself dumped the transport for the changer. The Dac was another matter.

There may be a difference - but I would rather spend it on speakers room treatments etc.

I run a changer and a dedicated single disc player - the Cambridge is probably better - but given the price - if I ad to do it over again I would take the Sony 300 disc player - and buy a second and third one instead of the CD-6.

And hey the 300 disc player does have a digital output if you really want an external DAC - and best of all you can always take an external DAC home to try out before you buy.

[Resident Loser]

...I have found that most, if not all CDPs, use either Sony or Philips transports as the basis for their units...any difference in the transports seems to be mechanical in nature...the long service life for a pro unit requires things like metal parts, glass lenses, that sort of thing...regardless of all the tomfoolery, a zero is a zero and a one is a one. It seems that when you get into the DACs is when the specific "sonic signatures" are futzed with...

As I recall there was a recent thread re: a German piece of "sonic artwork" which used the same transport as a very less(make that very, very, very less)expensive Marantz unit...limited production etc., the machined housing and laser-cut faceplate of the former, contributed to it's price and, as it always seems, that price was equated to by some, to be what elevated it to the "best"...what ever that means. As I recall the DAC had "timbral adjustments" or some other less-scary-to-the golden-eared euphemism for tone controls.

jimHJJ(...and solder is solder, and wire is wire, and the green grass grew all around...)

[woodman]

I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC.

Just because someone has a job with a "high-end" company does not mean that they are actually knowledgeable. In this case, the factory technician is talking directly out of his a** - just like Jim Carrey did in his film "Ace Ventura - Pet Detective". It's absolute, total BullSh!t. Skeptic spelled it all out in his reply here ... he is 100% correct.



Some day I will get energetic and see.

I certainly hope so. Then, you can cease and desist posting this sort of audiophoolery.

[E-Stat]

Therefore, reducing digital jitter in the transport doesn't result in a better digital data stream. This is one of the great advantages of the digital system of storage and retrieval of analog signals. It doesn't depend for quality on a super precision transport unit to play it back, it's independent of it as long as it meets the minimum requirements necessary for it to function at all.
Great theory as usual. It's a shame the theory doesn't work that way in the real world. Ever burn your own CDs? I've done hundreds. With data disks, I rarely have experienced any trouble using several different burners. Burning music disks, however, is a different matter. Doesn't matter whether I burn WAVs or MP3s. Even with my pretty fast 2.2 Ghz P4, I must slow down the burn from 32x down to 4x to prevent horribly obvious clicking and other timing artifacts.

rw

[skeptic]

And how do you account for the fact that you don't get these errors burning data cds but you get them with audio cds?

Ever consider that your A/D converter may not be quite up to the higher speed? This is the most likely cause of your problem. And it may be due to power supply voltage fluctuations, not the A/D chip itself. Blaming the cd transport is the last place to look for the answer not the first because on playback, either the PLL locks or it doesn't. If loss of lock were due to jitter, the problem would be constant with the artifacts occurring all of the time. This is the only conceivable marginal situation and would indicate that the entire cd recording process was on the verge of complete breakdown. There are no halfway situations like there are in analog systems. The naive one time use of green felt tip pens and plastic rings on the outer rims of discs which audiophiles swore made a drastic improvement in sound, shows that many of them have only a rudimentary understanding of the radical difference between digital and analog systems. The belief in more expensive precision transports is simply a way for manufacturers to exploit exactly this same widely held misconception that steadier rotation will somehow improve the ultimate sound. It just can't because the process doesn't work that way. The jitter was anticipated and compensation for it is built right into the process or the buffer registers wouldn't have been necessary. If you want an indication of how really effective they are, consider a portable unit which has to absorb enormous jarring and yet still usually maintains a steady audio output.

[E-Stat]

And how do you account for the fact that you don't get these errors burning data cds but you get them with audio cds?
Think about the fundamental difference. A data file really doesn't care about the speed or pace at which it arrives because it is not acted upon until the file has been entirely transferred. This is true for executables, image files, word processing files, etc. That is in stark contrast to the continuous nature of a wav based audio stream getting transferred.

rw

[RobotCzar]

I recently had a chance to speak with a factory technician for a "high end" company who assured me that there is a difference in brands of transports. We were discussing using digital outs of disc players and preamp DAC's vs stand alone players and DAC's. He says the difference is in how much jitter is caused when the information is read from the disc. Better transports will have less jitter and less of a problem to be corrected. He felt I would get better sound from my Krell transport than my Denon into the same DAC. Some day I will get energetic and see.

Those who use mega disc changers and feed the signal into an outboard DAC seem to be satisfied yet it sounds like better sonics could be had. Has any of you ever compared a single disc digital out to the jukebox? I would think the jukebox would be the worst possible transport.

The technician is right that there may be differences in jitter, which is due to clock errors in the player. OK, but the real issue is: does it make a difference we can hear?
Jitter errors will show up in standard THD measurements (I have previously published a reference for this but find it yourself in The Audio Critic or online). Almost all CD players (I am aware of --to please certain readers) have distortion measurements below the ability of humans to distinguish. So, if you are worried about jitter or the quality of the playback of your transport, just check its distortion specs or measurements. Jitter is one in a long line of high end "concerns" that are mere smoke to sell magazine and let English and journalism majors pretend they are technical. Bottom line is that there is no logical scientific reason to think there are audible differences in transports and when people have been tested they can't tell them apart. Of course, that is to my knowledge and perhaps Superman can detect audible differences in CD transports--but he hasn't been tested yet. "Listening" for differences is folly, you are much more likely to hear differences due to level mismatches or your biases.

Perhaps "factory technicians" of high end stuff are not the best source for reasonable information. Why not ask a designer (EE) of a reasonably priced product?

[skeptic]

It is entirely likely that cd players do not all sound alike. That is my experience and that of many other people as well. But these differences IMO have nothing to do with the transports. Early 16 and 18 bit D/A converters in the early to mid 80s were usually awful. But in the last 15 year or so with 20 and 1 bit converters, the only discernable differences are usually do to minor differences in analog frequency response. Therefore they are insignificant and of no consequence to anyone smart enough to use a graphic equalizer to achieve optimal tonal balance.

[E-Stat]

It is entirely likely that cd players do not all sound alike. That is my experience and that of many other people as well.
D'ya think?



But these differences IMO have nothing to do with the transports.
My experience suggests otherwise. BTW, with regard to your last post, the quality of the DAC in my computer with burning CDs is completely irrelevant because it is not used at all by the software. Time for a new theory.



But in the last 15 year or so with 20 and 1 bit converters, the only discernable differences are usually do to minor differences in analog frequency response.
Do you really believe is no audible difference whatsoever between the necessary analog circuitry between an $.80 op amp and a discrete stage using the finest components?

rw

[RobotCzar]

D'ya think?

Do you really believe is no audible difference whatsoever between the necessary analog circuitry between an $.80 op amp and a discrete stage using the finest components?

rw

The cost of a chip (or a section) is probably correlated to performance, so your inferrence is not totally off the wall, but the fact that you want to talk about price instead of performance does illustrate where you are coming from.

Why assume that there is an AUDIBLE difference between an opamp chip and a discrete stage based on price or cost? Why don't we just measure and see which has the better electrical performance? Armed with this information we can then make a better guess as to possible audible differences (with a much better chance of being right). Of course, even the cheap opamps sometimes outperform "high-end" tweako discrete designs (in terms of measured performance). And, of course, the performance of even very cheap opamps is these days almost always below audible thresholds. Pehaps that is why people can't tell them apart in listening tests (duh)?

[skeptic]

Excellent point. The price of semiconductor chips is almost always inversely proportional to the number produced up to a point. This is because once the development and tooling cost are amortized, the production cost per unit is almost zero. Op amps find their way into so many different applicatons and have been under development for so long that it would be surprising if there aren't many which can perform the function of signal level audio amplification just about perfectly for next to nothing.

[E-Stat]

Why assume that there is an AUDIBLE difference between an opamp chip and a discrete stage based on price or cost?
Because there are a sum total of zero state-of-the-art preamps that are chip based.


Of course, even the cheap opamps sometimes outperform "high-end" tweako discrete designs (in terms of measured performance).
Which shows you how totally useless such measurements are. The absolutely dreadful Crown IC-150 preamp had GREAT specs.


And, of course, the performance of even very cheap opamps is these days almost always below audible thresholds.
On what, test tones? LOL.

rw

[Sealed]

Since I have gone through 3 sets of opamps in my mod upgrade path here is the difference:

Stock, cheap opamps like OPA2134PA and the cheaper units used in mass market stuff (.80 cents) are slower, less detailed, and produce a soundstage that is more recessed, and dull. when you move up to the OPA2604PA, you are starting to get serious performance, and away from the mass-fi sound, and opacity. This opamp breathes life into a system.

Moving to a superb opamp like the $4.00 BB AD826, the soundstage cleans up dramatically. The image is pushed out and around the speakers, and there is much improved detail. The percieved/audible speed is better, because electrically, it is.

The 826 is such that it is a leap, not a step, but a leap from the cheaper opamps.

There is an obvious difference in the quality of parts used.

[skeptic]

"Which shows you how totally useless such measurements are. The absolutely dreadful Crown IC-150 preamp had GREAT specs."

The op amp used in the Crown IC 150 was developed more than a decade before the world's first microprocessor, the ancient Intel 8086. Wouldn't it have been remarkable if progress in op amp design hadn't in any way kept pace with the advances in other semiconductors? The last 35 years has seen as great or greater advance in electronics than any other comparable 35 year period. About the only thing that hasn't advanced very far in that time has been vacuum tubes and vacuum tube circuit designs. For the most part, that has been the only really stagnant area of electronics I can think of. In fact the only thing not stagnant has been the price which continues to escalate into the rediculous while the cost of most other electronics is constantly going down.

There is a limit to the perfection of the purely electronic function signal amplification can reach. As it approaches that limit, the only real advances will be in cost reduction.

[Sealed]

"In fact the only thing not stagnant has been the price which continues to escalate into the rediculous while the cost of most other electronics is constantly going down."

Fuel for that bonfire:

A lot of tube gear is SET or minimalist, which also means LESS parts. Simpler circuits. Yet rising prices.

[E-Stat]

The op amp used in the Crown IC 150 was developed more than a decade before the world's first microprocessor, the ancient Intel 8086.
As was the methodology for the largely irrelevant measurements on which the Robot most likely based his "outperforms" comment. Unlike chips, however, they have not improved to the point where there is direct correlation to components that measure and sound good. In fact, most of the newer, better sounding op amp designs have poorer specs than the lowly Fairchild 70's chip.



About the only thing that hasn't advanced very far in that time has been vacuum tubes and vacuum tube circuit designs.
While the tubes haven't progressed, the end result of using better components, auto-biasing circuits, and ultra rigid power supplies has advanced the audible result.


There is a limit to the perfection of the purely electronic function signal amplification can reach. As it approaches that limit, the only real advances will be in cost reduction.
Fine and dandy, but we haven't approached perfection yet.

rw

[RobotCzar]

As was the methodology for the largely irrelevant measurements on which the Robot most likely based his "outperforms" comment. Unlike chips, however, they have not improved to the point where there is direct correlation to components that measure and sound good. In fact, most of the newer, better sounding op amp designs have poorer specs than the lowly Fairchild 70's chip.

rw


Get a clue. "State of the art" is a marketing label. Of course those amps don't use opamp chips, the company is trying to sell to high-end cultists who simply believe (like you do) that discrete is better. (Besiders their "designers" can monkey with discrete componets, they can't very well muck up the innards of the chip.

I challenge you to tell use what measurement are not irrelavant. You need to talk to real engineers who perhaps can explain to you how there isn't anything else that matters in an electircal signal than distortiont (it is all that matters because it is all that there is that is not in the input signal.)

Perhaps this person will be really great teacher and point out that all audio/electrical signals are merely combinations of simple sine waves. (This is basic physics, you might want to look into it.) Perhaps this expert can also make you understand that humans can detect distortion better in signals that are pure tones rather than in music.

I don't want to laugh out loud at your comments, because, they do indicate a lack of understanding of the basics. I have tried to get you to see this, but it doesn't seem to be working. You cannot just read Stereophile, talk to some audio salon salesmen, and think you have it all figured out. Some work and study really is required. I think you could do it if you try.

Of couse you can show that I am a misguided moron if you simply tell us what measured performance factors are not irrelavant in judging amp performance. What are they?

[E-Stat]

Get a clue.
It is you who speaks entirely from conjecture. I base my comments upon direct experience. Maybe one of these days when you grow up, you may get a chance to do more than speculate upon that which you have no idea.


Of course those amps don't use opamp chips, the company is trying to sell to high-end cultists who simply believe (like you do) that discrete is better.
I'm continually amused by you conspiracy theorists ! While there may well be a company or two out there governed by such shallow guidelines, there are quite a few pioneering firms that have continually advanced the audio performance envelope over decades of experience. They build components on that which they find works best. Period. I don't doubt that at some date in the future, the op amps will eventually catch up. We ain't there yet, Robot.


I challenge you to tell use what measurement are not irrelavant. You need to talk to real engineers who perhaps can explain to you how there isn't anything else that matters in an electircal signal than distortiont (it is all that matters because it is all that there is that is not in the input signal.)
I had to read you comments a couple times to get past your double negative. THD for starters. It is based upon an average of readings using steady state test tones. Instantaneous distortion is masked. In case you don't understand otherwise, music is a wee bit more complex than steady state tones. The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID. That is why high frequency reproduction with that turkey sounds like fingernails on a chaulkboard. Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.



You cannot just read Stereophile, talk to some audio salon salesmen, and think you have it all figured out. Some work and study really is required. I think you could do it if you try.
You know nothing of my experience. I haven't been to an audio salon in years. I base my comments on direct experience to some very nice equipment. If you want to pick on a magazine and it's staff, then you will need to pick on The Absolute Sound. I have known John Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. You really have no idea what HP's current system sounds like vs. live music. Which is the way of engineers who spout theory with zero actual exposure about the components to which I refer.


Of couse you can show that I am a misguided moron if you simply tell us what measured performance factors are not irrelavant in judging amp performance. What are they?
I already gave you one irrelevant one. It's your turn to come up with one that does correlate to real world musical reproduction.

rw

[RobotCzar]

Since I have gone through 3 sets of opamps in my mod upgrade path here is the difference:

Stock, cheap opamps like OPA2134PA and the cheaper units used in mass market stuff (.80 cents) are slower, less detailed, and produce a soundstage that is more recessed, and dull. when you move up to the OPA2604PA, you are starting to get serious performance, and away from the mass-fi sound, and opacity. This opamp breathes life into a system.

Moving to a superb opamp like the $4.00 BB AD826, the soundstage cleans up dramatically. The image is pushed out and around the speakers, and there is much improved detail. The percieved/audible speed is better, because electrically, it is.

There is an obvious difference in the quality of parts used.


If you are new to the world of home audio, here is how to tell you are being misled by a highender in regard to amps:

1) They mention the word "detailed". This is a fairly meainingless which could relate to accuracy, but implies that they can hear more. Remember this: amps to not create sounds, (if you're lucky)--they deal strictly with electrical signals. The distortion of a signal is the difference between the input and the output. Low distortion means the output signal is virtually the same as the input. No "detail" is involved.

2) They mention the words "slow" or "fast". My amp cannot move, it is stationary. What could they mean? The rate at which the amp can change its output level? That's slew rate, it is more than adequte for most home amps. (Do you doubt you amp can respond faster that the orchestra?) My amp can respond to 20 KHz signal ( more like 100 KHz)--which moves its output up and down 20,000 times a second. Pretty fast! The use of speed words in talking about an amp is indicative of high-end muddled thinking. Run for the hills when you hear it!

3) When they talk aboout soundstage in regard to an amp. This is mind numbing. You get your 3D cues by slight sound time delays and volume levels between the two speakers. The response and location of you speakers' greatly affect the 3D effect (in addition to your room.) Your amp can't effect sound stage unless it is messing up the two channels with time or level imbalances. All properly perfoming amps don't do that. Duh! I have heard scads of amps and speakers, amps don't affect soundstage (they can't), speakers do.

4) When they talk "mass market" and make statements like "breathing life" into your system it should be clear that they are coming from a high-end, irrational perspective. You can't blame them, this stuff is all over the subjectivist magizines. So, hey, they read it in a mag, so it must be true. Darn if they can't begin to hear it in their overly expensive electronics.

If you made it to this response, you have heard that nobody (I have heard of in over 20 years in home audio) has demontrated that they can tell amps apart (note that not everyone has been tested). If that seems problematical to you in light of comments made about the clear differences in speed, detail, soundstange, and life in your amp, then proceed to ignore such statements. Join the rational audio club, you will save money and get BETTER sound.

[RobotCzar]

It is you who speaks entirely from conjecture. I base my comments upon direct experience.

THD for starters. It is based upon an average of readings using steady state test tones. Instantaneous distortion is masked. In case you don't understand otherwise, music is a wee bit more complex than steady state tones. The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID. That is why high frequency reproduction with that turkey sounds like fingernails on a chaulkboard. Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT SUCH THINGS? TEST TONES ARE NOT "STEADY STATE" BUT ARE CONTINUOUSLY VARYING (AT UP TO 20 KHZ). DUH! YOU ARE MAKING UP PHRASES (ACTUALLY BORROWING THEM FROM NON-TECHNICAL MAGAZIINES). PERHAPS YOU SHOULD FIND OUT THAT DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO SHOW UP IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. EXACTLY HOW MUCH TIM/SID IS EGREGIOUS? EVEN CHEAP AMPS HAVE AMOUNTS BELOW THE THESHOLD OF HUMANS TO DETECT. IT IS YOUR COMMENTS ARE TOTALLY USELESS UNLESS YOU FIND OUT THE REAL FACTS.

You know nothing of my experience. I haven't been to an audio salon in years. I base my comments on direct experience to some very nice equipment. If you want to pick on a magazine and it's staff, then you will need to pick on The Absolute Sound. I have known John Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. You really have no idea what HP's current system sounds like vs. live music. Which is the way of engineers who spout theory with zero actual exposure about the components to which I refer.

OH GEE, EXCUSE ME, I THOUGHT THE ABSOLUTE SOUND WAS A HIGH-END SUBJECTIVIST MAGAZINE WRITTEN BY NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW (OR EVEN BELIEVE IN) SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ....HEY, MAYBE MY ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT THAT FAR OFF?

I already gave you one irrelevant one. It's your turn to come up with one that does correlate to real world musical reproduction.


rw


THD AND FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL TELL THE WHOLE STORY FOR ELECTRONICS (PROVIDED MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE AT ENOUGHT DATA POINTS, I.E., FREQUENCIES, POWER LEVELS, AND LOADS. THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE FROM A PHYSICS/ELECTRONICS PERSPECTIVE.
REPEAT: DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO BE ENCORPORATED IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. AUDIO ELECTRICAL SIGNALS ARE MERELY COMBINATIONS OF PURE TONES YOU CALL "STEADY STATE".

I ACCEPT THAT YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME AND HAVE ASKED YOU TO FIND AN EXPERT YOU TRUST. YOU ARE RELYING TOO MUCH ON YOUR EXPERIENCES AND THE STATEMENTS OF CULTISTS SUCH AS THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION.

I take your response to be that high end amps have lower dynamic distortion and that this distortion is audible at the level found in typical, non high end, amps. I disagree on all counts, but at least you are saying something other than your "experiences".

[92135011]

Buddy,
This cant be good on your blood pressure.
Stress leads to hypertension and high blood cholesterol.
In addition, it also has a huge impact on your immune system.
So not only are you more likely to get sick, but you might plug a blood vessel and kill yourself at the same time.

Maybe you need a vacation? It IS summer (well...if you live in the northern hemisphere)

[skeptic]

"Fine and dandy, but we haven't approached perfection yet."

How do you know?

[mtrycraft]

I don't want to laugh out loud at your comments, because, they do indicate a lack of understanding of the basics. I have tried to get you to see this, but it doesn't seem to be working. You cannot just read Stereophile, talk to some audio salon salesmen, and think you have it all figured out. Some work and study really is required. I think you could do it if you try.

Of couse you can show that I am a misguided moron if you simply tell us what measured performance factors are not irrelavant in judging amp performance. What are they?


He has been brainwashed for 30 years. No hope left.

[mtrycraft]

I base my comments upon direct experience.

Yep, so do alien abductees customers of psychic readings, etc. Why would audio be expemt from bs, unreliable perception, even after 30 years?

They build components on that which they find works best.

Or, what the gullibl eaudiophile will buy.


The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID.

More audio hype, voodoo.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm

I winder where TIM/SID is?


Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.

You are entitled to that opinion. But some are better than others.



You know nothing of my experience. I haven't been to an audio salon in years. I base my comments on direct experience to some very nice equipment.

Of course those experiences are fact filled and reliable, right?

[Sealed]

If you are new to the world of home audio, here is how to tell you are being misled by a highender in regard to amps:

1) They mention the word "detailed". This is a fairly meainingless which could relate to accuracy, but implies that they can hear more.
--DUH. I have been in this game since 1986. I know precisely what I said, and what I meant. The superior opamps do deliver detail that the cheaper opamps smear away. They do not have the slew rate, nor the transient speed. It's like sound through jello vs through steel. A more efficient transmitter.


Remember this: amps to not create sounds, (if you're lucky)--they deal strictly with electrical signals. The distortion of a signal is the difference between the input and the output. Low distortion means the output signal is virtually the same as the input. No "detail" is involved.

--Did I ever imply that? No. You are simply taking a soapbox, and condescending withought knowing my background or what I have done. Simple ego puffery and pretense. I really, really hope you are explaining things to someone other than me, because you are preaching to the choir.


2) They mention the words "slow" or "fast". My amp cannot move, it is stationary. What could they mean? The rate at which the amp can change its output level? That's slew rate, it is more than adequte for most home amps. (Do you doubt you amp can respond faster that the orchestra?) My amp can respond to 20 KHz signal ( more like 100 KHz)--which moves its output up and down 20,000 times a second. Pretty fast! The use of speed words in talking about an amp is indicative of high-end muddled thinking. Run for the hills when you hear it!

--Or it's indicitive of your lack of real understanding about the interaction of components and circuitry. The cheaper opamps are again, of less fidelity, and less transient speed. This is clearly visible on a tectronix o'scope, and clearly audible.


3) When they talk aboout soundstage in regard to an amp. This is mind numbing.
--Only to those with numb minds

You get your 3D cues by slight sound time delays and volume levels between the two speakers. The response and location of you speakers' greatly affect the 3D effect (in addition to your room.) Your amp can't effect sound stage unless it is messing up the two channels with time or level imbalances. All properly perfoming amps don't do that. Duh! I have heard scads of amps and speakers, amps don't affect soundstage (they can't), speakers do.

--Yes they do Eienstien. The source will determine what the speakers can reproduce. Else you are saying all sources, lp, cd, sacd, dvd-a sound exactly the same. The soundstage is a 3 dimensional reproduction of the electrical signal (audio) as it's fed to the final transducer (speaker) I really wish you'd learn what you are talking about before you soap box. You clearly have a sophomoric understanding of very basic, simple math and simple sales-droid logic. You havce obviously never even pulled the cover off a component, swapped parts or even examined a schematic.

4) When they talk "mass market" and make statements like "breathing life" into your system it should be clear that they are coming from a high-end, irrational perspective. You can't blame them, this stuff is all over the subjectivist magizines. So, hey, they read it in a mag, so it must be true. Darn if they can't begin to hear it in their overly expensive electronics.

--I know it's a tough concept for your weak mind to wrap around. I know there are one billion more concrete terms to use. When a system is formerly dull, lifeless, and opaque because of sheer lack of resoloution or speed, then you upgrade the cheap parts installed to make a price point to those normally found in better components, you wake the part up. This is like building an engine for peak performance instead of everyday mileage. You are so wrong in so many areas. Does your head fit through doorways?

If you made it to this response, you have heard that nobody (I have heard of in over 20 years in home audio) has demontrated that they can tell amps apart (note that not everyone has been tested).
--You need to get out of the old age home. You guys over 45 have acute hearing loss. If you can't tell the difference between a cary SET and a krell KSA, get out of the hobby.


If that seems problematical to you in light of comments made about the clear differences in speed, detail, soundstange, and life in your amp, then proceed to ignore such statements. Join the rational audio club, you will save money and get BETTER sound.


You have no clue. You are obviously one of the sheer incompetant dipshi7s that must BUY his way into better sound, but cannot decipher an amp from an ohm from a volt from a watt in a formula without cut & paste from the net. Such a feeble minded lemming you are. You should get an audiometric exam, you are obviously tone deaf to add to your sheer lack of knowledge and understanding.

[Sealed]

[QUOTE=RobotCzar]THD AND FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL TELL THE WHOLE STORY FOR ELECTRONICS (PROVIDED MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE AT ENOUGHT DATA POINTS, I.E., FREQUENCIES, POWER LEVELS, AND LOADS. THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE FROM A PHYSICS/ELECTRONICS PERSPECTIVE.
REPEAT: DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO BE ENCORPORATED IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. AUDIO ELECTRICAL SIGNALS ARE MERELY COMBINATIONS OF PURE TONES YOU CALL "STEADY STATE".

I ACCEPT THAT YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME AND HAVE ASKED YOU TO FIND AN EXPERT YOU TRUST. YOU ARE RELYING TOO MUCH ON YOUR EXPERIENCES AND THE STATEMENTS OF CULTISTS SUCH AS THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION.
QUOTE]


AND I AM ONLY USING CAPSLOCK BECAUSE YOUR DUMB A$$ DID. GET A CLUE MORON. AND YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT ANY OF THEM ACTUALLY MEAN OR WHAT ALL OF THE MEASUREMENTS ACTUALLY ARE. WITHOUT CUTTING AND PASTING YOU'D NOT BE ABLE TO TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OPAMP CONSTRUCTION, WHAT TIM AND SLEW RATE ACTUALLY ARE. YOU FANCY YOURSELF A NELSON PASS WANNABE, BUT COME OFF AS A CLUELESS FLAT EARTH A$$.

YOUR BRAIN IS A COMBINATION OF PURE TONES WITH NO HARMONICS TOO. OBVIOUSLY INCAPABABLE OF ANYTHING MORE THAN ELEMENTARY ELECTRONICS AND LOGIC. GO BACK TO SCHOOL, AND LEARN THIS TIME.

[WmAx]

It is based upon an average of readings using steady state test tones. Instantaneous distortion is masked. In case you don't understand otherwise, music is a wee bit more complex than steady state tones. The Crown IC-150 preamp was the poster child for negative feedback gone amok leading to egregious amounts of TIM/SID. That is why high frequency reproduction with that turkey sounds like fingernails on a chaulkboard. Yet it had something like 0.005 THD. Totally useless.TIM distortion is a 'real' phenomena, given the correct perspective. TIM appears to be an expression of high frequency non-linearity of a gain stage. It is not caused by negative feedback except when the slew rate of the circuit is not adequate to keep up. IF one exceeds the bandwidth determined mathematically by the slew rate the result is rapidly increasing high frequency non-linearity that is highly dynamic, since the higher voltage output the higher the distortion when slew limiting sets in. Modern circuits have no such issues when used within proper established design theory considering the bandwidth/feedback/slew-rate. Proper THD measurements at enough datapoints reveal this 'TIM' as it is somewhat improperly called, since it's not really a distinct distortion, but seemingly a combination of non linearities. However, more complex procedural testing as has been described in various documents on how to test 'TIM' distortion specifically, these can be potentinally used to reveal further details about the base source/origin of the non linear distortion if that is important to the circuit designer. Not to be confused with audibility.

20 years or more ago, it was time-consuming to produce detailed THD plots of various conditions(differring amplitudes/loads/frequencies/etc.). Today, such can be done easily and efficiently with moderan automated signal analysis equipment.

Here is a plot of a once common audio IC 20 or more years ago, with grossly indadequate slew-rate resulting in high levels non-linear behaviour at risig frequencies but would result in 'very good' measurements if useless static THD measurements were made, at which time would observe a standard 1kHz THD value, which in this case would result in 0.015% reading for this device. Hoewver, observation of this detailed THD plot makes the true results apparent.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/op741a.gif

Here are teh results for a modern audio purposed produced op-amp that is considered to be one of the mediocre designs on the market as far as technical performance, but yet has no potentially audible signficnat problems with high frequency non-linearity. I could refer to very good examples that have magnitudes lower distortion then this, but I wanted to give a worst-case scenario for a device you might commonly find in a mass consumer product:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/njm4556s.gif

The multiple plots are represeantive of different termination loads and specified in large numbers on the left. (680=680 Ohms, 1k=1kohms, etc.).

-Chris

[WmAx]

BTW, the 'poor' graph is of a typical 741 operational amplifier with a 0.5 v/us slew rate. The Crown IC-150 is referred to as having a 709 operational amplifier. This was the first mass produced audio op-amp, and it's slew rate was about half that of the 741, at around 0.25 v/us. Totally inadequate for the audio band -- it made the 741 look like a linear device!

-Chris

[E-Stat]

REPEAT: DYNAMIC DISTORTION IS PROVEN TO BE ENCORPORATED IN THD MEASUREMENTS AT HIGH FREQUENCIES. AUDIO ELECTRICAL SIGNALS ARE MERELY COMBINATIONS OF PURE TONES YOU CALL "STEADY STATE".
Another factor I failed to mention in my first post is that THD lumps all the spectra together without acknowledging the well known fact that odd order harmonics are interpreted by the brain as dissonant where even ones are not. May you be sentenced to life listening to a Crown ICCCCH-150.


I ACCEPT THAT YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME AND HAVE ASKED YOU TO FIND AN EXPERT YOU TRUST. YOU ARE RELYING TOO MUCH ON YOUR EXPERIENCES AND THE STATEMENTS OF CULTISTS SUCH AS THE PEOPLE YOU MENTION.
My friend, thirty years of listening to live music and music reproduced on very high resolution systems will trump your simplistic notions in a heartbeat.



I take your response to be that high end amps have lower dynamic distortion and that this distortion is audible at the level found in typical, non high end, amps. I disagree on all counts, but at least you are saying something other than your "experiences".
Let's try again. What I said was that THD lumps and averages all distortion over time into a single convenient figure that does not correlate to musical fidelity. I have heard amps with great THD specs and horrible sound. The search for the holy grail of lowering THD readings by using copious amounts of negative feedback was proven to be folly and is not done anymore. Ironically, the amps I find most musical tend to have higher THD figures, most certainly my tube amps.

I'm really curious as to your point of reference. What is the system you find most musicallly truthful? It does not have to be your own. I'm wondering if you have the confidence of skeptic and the Monster to provide such information, or the total lack thereof as with our resident class clown.

rw

[E-Stat]

Why would audio be expemt from bs, unreliable perception, even after 30 years?
Only a person who has a deep love of and long term experience with listening to live music would understand. I find it sad that is something you will likely never understand.

rw

[E-Stat]

"Fine and dandy, but we haven't approached perfection yet."

How do you know?
I have yet to hear a single amp or preamp that trumps every other challenger in every way. I find that the best tubes provide me the best set of musical compromises especially with the critical midrange. While the best SS designs I've heard don't equal tubes in that respect, some do have better response at the frequency extremes.

MOSFET designs are said to bridge the traditional strong points of both designs. The GamuT single MOSFET amps are very musical indeed, yet I do not find them as musically truthful as my VTLs . I note that you use a MOSFET amp.

Do tell me of a perfect amp. I'd love to hear it.

rw

[RobotCzar]

Another factor I failed to mention in my first post is that THD lumps all the spectra together without acknowledging the well known fact that odd order harmonics are interpreted by the brain as dissonant where even ones are not. May you be sentenced to life listening to a Crown ICCCCH-150.

My friend, thirty years of listening to live music and music reproduced on very high resolution systems will trump your simplistic notions in a heartbeat.

Let's try again. What I said was that THD lumps and averages all distortion over time into a single convenient figure that does not correlate to musical fidelity. I have heard amps with great THD specs and horrible sound. The search for the holy grail of lowering THD readings by using copious amounts of negative feedback was proven to be folly and is not done anymore. Ironically, the amps I find most musical tend to have higher THD figures, most certainly my tube amps.

I'm really curious as to your point of reference. What is the system you find most musicallly truthful? It does not have to be your own. I'm wondering if you have the confidence of skeptic and the Monster to provide such information, or the total lack thereof as with our resident class clown.

rw

Well, thanks for not deteriorating into a raving lunatic as at least one other has done. It would be helpful if you answered the issues I have raised instead of just running on to other misconceptions.

As you can see from the previous response, THD can be used to assess dynamic distortion, as I claimed. The specific data in that post also clearly calls into question your assertion that opamps have audible dynamic distortion. The wrongness of your comments could not be better proven wrong in this type of forum. Why not admit it?
No one is suggesting that one THD measurement is sufficient to judge the performance of a power amp.

Now, you have ignored what I said about distortion, you have ignored what I said about using test tones, let's move on to the another favorite of high-end nonsense: odd-order harmonics. No doubt that some solid state amps have higher odd-order harmonics than tube ones (the correlation between even and odd harmonics in extremely expensive solid state amps is not established and I have not heard of expensive amps necessarily measuring differently that cheap ones in regard to the character of the harmonics). The real point, of course, is that the SUM of all the harmonics (e.g., THD) is so low that the nature of the harmonics in the distortion are irrelavant (because they are inaudible). Does that make any sense to you?

I have been listening to home audio for 30 years and I have also been listening to misinformation spread by those who are into audio for ego purposes. A symptom of this ego is the "my system is better than yours..." claim. It probably isn't, but it surely is more expensive. Reports and claims from audiophiles are proven to be extremely unreliable--is there any reason to think yours are different?

The music system I find most musically truthful is Orchestra Hall. No home audio system sounds quite like it, but some come closer than others. None approaches "truth" or even can because the acoustic environment in which the system operates is the biggest factor affecting what is heard. If you could reconsider your beliefs you would get really better sonic results, not merely a feeling of satisfaction at your equipment.

[RobotCzar]

You have no clue. You are obviously one of the sheer incompetant dipshi7s that must BUY his way into better sound, but cannot decipher an amp from an ohm from a volt from a watt in a formula without cut & paste from the net. Such a feeble minded lemming you are. You should get an audiometric exam, you are obviously tone deaf to add to your sheer lack of knowledge and understanding.

I merely note that no matter how long you have been using terms that are meaningless, they don't become meaningful. That is why you can't define them. That is also why you must resort to name calling.

The oldest trick in the book is for boys to get together and make up words that only the in-group "understands" (priests were probably the first, but teenagers seem to do it naturally). Using these words makes one seem smart, as if nobody outside the group really "gets" it. I am not sorry to point out that these words have no meaning technically. The weakness of your defense of them merely points out how useless these made-up words really are. Stringing more together like "transient speed" really doesn't help.

You might stop to consider that maybe I have a point before you get all defensive and offensive about this. We all make mistakes, the only real mistake is to not learn from our errors and change.

[RobotCzar]

TIM distortion is a 'real' phenomena, given the correct perspective. TIM appears to be an expression of high frequency non-linearity of a gain stage. It is not caused by negative feedback except when the slew rate of the circuit is not adequate to keep up. IF one exceeds the bandwidth determined mathematically by the slew rate the result is rapidly increasing high frequency non-linearity that is highly dynamic, since the higher voltage output the higher the distortion when slew limiting sets in. Modern circuits have no such issues when used within proper established design theory considering the bandwidth/feedback/slew-rate. Proper THD measurements at enough datapoints reveal this 'TIM' as it is somewhat improperly called, since it's not really a distinct distortion, but seemingly a combination of non linearities. However, more complex procedural testing as has been described in various documents on how to test 'TIM' distortion specifically, these can be potentinally used to reveal further details about the base source/origin of the non linear distortion if that is important to the circuit designer. Not to be confused with audibility....

-Chris


Wow. Thank you, thank you, for a rational response with real data and information in it. I learned something new and useful from AR! Well, alright!

If I may be so bold as to add just a bit to your wonderful post? You said "'TIM' as it is somewhat improperly called, since it's not really a distinct distortion" I merely want to expand a bit on that by saying that there really aren't different "kinds" of distortion. Distortion is defined as the differencce (minus gain) between the input and output signal. Audiophlies get confused because of the labeling of "types" of distortion such as THD, IM, TIM, crossover, etc. These terms refer mainly to how distortion is measured (e.g., by measuring all harmonic of a sine = THD) or the source of distorion (crossover).

I think it helps non-technical people sort this all out if they understand that distortion is distortion and that it contains all that is unwanted in an electronic signal.

[Sealed]

I merely note that no matter how long you have been using terms that are meaningless, they don't become meaningful. That is why you can't define them. That is also why you must resort to name calling.

The oldest trick in the book is for boys to get together and make up words that only the in-group "understands" (priests were probably the first, but teenagers seem to do it naturally). Using these words makes one seem smart, as if nobody outside the group really "gets" it. I am not sorry to point out that these words have no meaning technically. The weakness of your defense of them merely points out how useless these made-up words really are. Stringing more together like "transient speed" really doesn't help.

You might stop to consider that maybe I have a point before you get all defensive and offensive about this. We all make mistakes, the only real mistake is to not learn from our errors and change.

Nah, you are just a deaf, clueless, boy-raping POS with zero electronic knowledge, and wax-filled ears. You wouldn't know circuit city from Wilson if it was given to you.

You are a totally lost moron, with his head rammed up his butt so far he can see out his own mouth.

You should shut up, because it's obvious you have zero knowledge.

[WmAx]

Nah, you are just a deaf, clueless, boy-raping POS with zero electronic knowledge, and wax-filled ears. You wouldn't know circuit city from Wilson if it was given to you.

You are a totally lost moron, with his head rammed up his butt so far he can see out his own mouth.

You should shut up, because it's obvious you have zero knowledge.I see place for sarcasm, definitive nouns(accuratey describing behaviour) or other methods of 'insult' of poking 'fun' at the actual issues at hand if done properly and within the proper scope on a forum. However, what you have done here is to resort to petty name calling that is not based on observable traits of the person you are responding. Or do you have substantiatino he is a boy-raping POS? Why not point out exactly what parts of his demonstrated electronic knowledge is wrong? Or is the extent of your capability limited to weak "I said so" type arguments?


-Chris

[E-Stat]

Well, thanks for not deteriorating into a raving lunatic as at least one other has done.
You're welcome. I see nothing to be gained by lowering the tone of the discussion.


It would be helpful if you answered the issues I have raised instead of just running on to other misconceptions.
You just "shouted" simplistic notions with no proof of any kind, be it observational or otherwise.


As you can see from the previous response, THD can be used to assess dynamic distortion, as I claimed.
Surely you jest. Are you suggesting that Chris' two graphs are conclusive proof that such provides a clear picture of dynamic behavior?



The specific data in that post also clearly calls into question your assertion that opamps have audible dynamic distortion. The wrongness of your comments could not be better proven wrong in this type of forum. Why not admit it?
Do tell me of an op amp based circuit that is so perfect it's distortion is inaudible in reproducing musical content. This is really going to be quite amusing! :)



No one is suggesting that one THD measurement is sufficient to judge the performance of a power amp.
I'm glad you acknowledge that. I'd say that is progress.


Now, you have ignored what I said about distortion, you have ignored what I said about using test tones, let's move on to the another favorite of high-end nonsense: odd-order harmonics.
I ignore your simplistic assertions to a complex problem. As for harmonic spectra, an analogy would be looking at total cholesterol and attemping to make a health based judgement without analyzing the HDL content vs. LDL content.



The real point, of course, is that the SUM of all the harmonics (e.g., THD) is so low that the nature of the harmonics in the distortion are irrelavant (because they are inaudible). Does that make any sense to you?
It would make sense if it were true. Again, do tell me of your perfect amp with inaudible distortion.


I have been listening to home audio for 30 years and I have also been listening to misinformation spread by those who are into audio for ego purposes.
As have I having worked in audio during college. You are conversing with a different sort of person.


A symptom of this ego is the "my system is better than yours..." claim. It probably isn't, but it surely is more expensive. Reports and claims from audiophiles are proven to be extremely unreliable--is there any reason to think yours are different?
Let's read my request again and see if you get it this time:

I'm really curious as to your point of reference. What is the system you find most musicallly truthful? It does not have to be your own.

Did you notice I did not ask you about your system? I don't really care what you own. What I am curious to understand is just what I said - your point of reference. I'm sorry you find your position so weak as to dodge the question. I hold higher esteem for those who have more confidence in their beliefs.


If you could reconsider your beliefs you would get really better sonic results, not merely a feeling of satisfaction at your equipment.
To which beliefs are you referring? How is it I will get better sonic results? I'm all ears.

rw

[RobotCzar]

E-Stat, Ok, I give up trying to reason with you. Obviously neither logic or data are meaningful to you. Name plates, however, are--or you would not be asking for name dropping. You have offered NO evdience or even a meager defense for your (borrowed) ideas. You must realize that you are spouting age-old high-end nonsense and bad analogies and ignoring points I have tried to explain regarding basic physics and electronics. (If my total cholesterol were low enough it would not matter what percentage of it was good or bad--your own analogy doesn't work for your argument.) It is kind of sad to see people taken in by high end technobabble, but you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.

I tried to imply (perhaps too subtlely) that the only sonic truth is a live performance. You may be inexperienced in listening to live music, so you perhaps don't understand that what you hear in the home is totally determined by the quality of the recording, the speakers, and the acoustic environment. 2 of 3 aren't even part of an audio system, so you are asking a question that demonstrates lack of understanding of the basics of home audio. Again, this can be corrected if you want to correct it. The result would be, as I implied, more accurate and realistic home audio.

The post I referred to used logic and data to support several points that are in opposition to what you say. You can't just dismiss such information with a sneer, you look foolish when you do that.

[WmAx]

Surely you jest. Are you suggesting that Chris' two graphs are conclusive proof that such provides a clear picture of dynamic behavior?I'm not sure what's being assumed. My post and graphs were not intended to encapsulate 'a clear picture of dynamic behaviour'. They were intended to outline the 'TIM' distortion that was referenced to earlier; nothing else.



Do tell me of an op amp based circuit that is so perfect it's distortion is inaudible in reproducing musical content. This is really going to be quite amusing! :)

What do you mean? Objective or subjective inaudible distortion? Objectively, their are tons of low cost operational amplifiers available that should have inaudible levels of distortion(IMD and THD) throughout the entire audio bandwidth. Even the cheap NJM4556 I referenced in the 2nd graph, produced no audibly appreciable distortion according to known human threshold studies of THD and IMD[1]. Subjectively, by this I mean sighted A/B listening without controls; of course this is non-determinant solely by measurable parameters. Psychological influence would be a probably contaminent of the test.

[1] Just Detectable Distortion Levels, Jamies Moire, F.I.E.E., Wireless World, February 1981

-Chris

[RobotCzar]

I'm not sure what's being assumed. My post and graphs were not intended to encapsulate 'a clear picture of dynamic behaviour'. They were intended to outline the 'TIM' distortion that was referenced to earlier; nothing else.


-Chris

You stated that multiple THD measurements at high frequencies can be used to judge dynamic distortion, and that TIM is not really a separate "type" of distortion. That claim, is detrimental to e-stat's belief that somehow THD is worthless. Your post also points up the fact that he has no basis to think that TIM typical of opamps (or any other amps) is audible. (Maybe it does effect "subjective distortion" --wink wink.)

Thanks again for your contribution.

E-stat has zero evidence that TIM is audible at levels found in cheap amps or op amps (acutally he has no evidence that TIM is typically lower in expensive descrete amps either). This does not stop him from claiming he is making some kind of point.

[WmAx]

You stated that multiple THD measurements at high frequencies can be used to judge dynamic distortion, This statement is broad. I did not state that exactly. Dynamic distortion as a term that could concievably apply to almost anything. Specifically, I referred to the dynamic effect/non linearity that occurs in relation to a slew rate that is insufficient for a given frequency vs. voltage and it's result when this is exceeded.



and that TIM is not really a separate "type" of distortion. That claim, is detrimental to e-stat's belief that somehow THD is worthless. I agree. Of course -- THD is important; but it must be measured under enough conditions and a large enough sample of data points to be useful. For example, that IC-150 pream discussed eariler would likely have good distortion measurements at high frequencies IF you did so at steady state 2 volts and under into a typical load -- but above that voltage(and more then 2 volts average may be required to achieve adequate volume with many amp/speaker combinations - nor does this consider the peak voltage for dynamic parts of the recordings) and the distortion rapidly would have to rapidly increase. I just did not want any confusion. :-)

-Chris

[Sealed]

I see place for sarcasm, definitive nouns(accuratey describing behaviour) or other methods of 'insult' of poking 'fun' at the actual issues at hand if done properly and within the proper scope on a forum. However, what you have done here is to resort to petty name calling that is not based on observable traits of the person you are responding. Or do you have substantiatino he is a boy-raping POS? Why not point out exactly what parts of his demonstrated electronic knowledge is wrong? Or is the extent of your capability limited to weak "I said so" type arguments?


-Chris

Far be it from me, if you two lovers want to get a hotel room, I am not going to stand between you.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, Ok, I give up trying to reason with you. Obviously neither logic or data are meaningful to you.
Or at least your colored interpretation of that concept. I am a computer programmer by trade and understand logic quite well.


Name plates, however, are--or you would not be asking for name dropping.
If a scientist asks another as to which test instrument one used, is that name dropping? Or trying to understand the point of reference. Hide behind your weak experience.



I tried to imply (perhaps too subtlely) that the only sonic truth is a live performance.
While that is true, it does not in any way negate qualitative differences amongst literally hundreds of audio components. You would understand if your experience were wider.


You may be inexperienced in listening to live music, so you perhaps don't understand that what you hear in the home is totally determined by the quality of the recording, the speakers, and the acoustic environment.
Sorry, your superiority complex doesn't work with me. I attend the ASO regularly, and my long term friend and ex-Absolute Sound reviewer John Cooledge is a member of the syphony board and advisor on their recordings. Consequently I have enjoyed the luxury of company with Robert Shaw, Robert Spano, and a number of musicians from the symphony. You will find my name in a minor role in the Telarc recording of ASO's Firebird. My wife regularly plays the baby grand in the living room. Your comments suggest that you must be part of the dense "all amplifiers sound the same camp". Sorry to hear that! While the acoustic venue is a critical component, it is not the sole one.


The result would be, as I implied, more accurate and realistic home audio.
I have a number of very nice minimally miked recordings of unamplified music. At HP's, I have sampled a boat load more of exceptional recordings, some of which are not available to the public. As for speakers, I use full range electrostatic speakers that resolve instruments quite well, thank you.


The post I referred to used logic and data to support several points that are in opposition to what you say. You can't just dismiss such information with a sneer, you look foolish when you do that.
No it doesn't. It uses a simplistic example and theory to explain a complex system. You let your guard down in another post by talking about your AR98s. Fine bookshelf speakers. I have a pair of Large Advents in the garage myself. I trust, however, that they are not your reference point as to what audio speakers are capable of doing. If so, you really have no idea what is possible.

rw

[E-Stat]

My post and graphs were not intended to encapsulate 'a clear picture of dynamic behaviour'. They were intended to outline the 'TIM' distortion that was referenced to earlier; nothing else.
Indeed. I understood your point, but the Robot read far more into your comments that you intended.



What do you mean? Objective or subjective inaudible distortion?
Well for starters, the distortion is most certainly audible when playing musical content.( I couldn't care less what happens with simplistic tones) .The ability to tell the difference between using an op amp based amplification stage versus using none at all. A bypass test. I am fortune in having a high output CDP with low output impedance and use short, low capacitance cables (4 volts/75 ohms/80 pF). That allows me to choose to either use my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII preamp in the circuit or to not at all. In it's place, I use a DIY attenuator using DACT and Cardas components. The audible difference between using a good preamp and none is clear: It is far from perfect and loses detail and shrinks soundstage. Tell me of a commerically available preamp using op amps that is capable of being completely transparent so that its presence cannot be discerned from its absence. I've yet to hear ANY preamp of any design meet that criteria.

rw

[RobotCzar]

"Or at least your colored interpretation of that concept. I am a computer programmer by trade and understand logic quite well."

Well, actually, no you don't. I have asked you if the harmonic structiure of distortion makes a difference is the total distortion is inaudible and you either can't or won't answer. Indications are that you don't understand the logic involved. (By the way, I have an M.S. in Computer Science, I am a licensed teacher of physics, and I am a PHD student in educational psychology. I find your comments illogical and without proper understanding of the basics.)

"If a scientist asks another as to which test instrument one used, is that name dropping? Or trying to understand the point of reference. Hide behind your weak experience."

Obviously scientists can and do merely state the performance characteristics of their equipment. Brand names would not be used unless they unambigiously specific the performance parameters of the instrument. Are you making thiis stuff up? Your statement indicates a poor logical understanding of scientific procedure. You also seem to be confused about the fact that home audio amps are not scientific instruments--even your tweako expensive ones.


"While that is true, it does not in any way negate qualitative differences amongst literally hundreds of audio components. You would understand if your experience were wider."

Actually, I would "understand" if my experience were narrower. like yours. If my points don't negate qualitative differences among amps (not all components) then why not tell me how I am wrong? You are wrong as there is no evidence of audible differences, got that?--zero evidence to back up your pet belief.

"Sorry, your superiority complex doesn't work with me. I attend the ASO ... suggest that you must be part of the dense "all amplifiers sound the same camp". Sorry to hear that! While the acoustic venue is a critical component, it is not the sole one.

Then why are you asking about truth is systems, why aren't you getting that only live performance is the "truth"? Why did you only ask about my components and not my listening room and its arrageemnt?


"No it doesn't. It uses a simplistic example and theory to explain a complex system. You let your guard down in another post by talking about your AR98s. Fine bookshelf speakers. I have a pair of Large Advents in the garage myself. I trust, however, that they are not your reference point as to what audio speakers are capable of doing. If so, you really have no idea what is possible."

You keep spouting mumbo jumbo and don't make any logical sense. I am trying to keep things simplistic because you don't seem to be getting the basics. "simplistic" Audio reproduction is simple in regard to electronics, it is the acoustic and psycho-acoustic factors that are complex. Electrical behavior at the level of home audio is completely understood by scientists and electrical engineers, not cult magazine editors. Why don't you explain how and why my point are wrong instead of ignoring them or just labling them

Let me review a few:

1. You claim measurements of THD are useless, when I ask you for what isn't you mention TIM (a form of dynamic disortion) but I contend (and Chris provided some support) that TIM IS INCULDED IN THD measurments. This is a fact, I will give you references if you like. If TIM matters, and it is included in THD, then how can THD not matter? You didn't know this, admit it.

2. You mention the haromonic structure (odd vs even) of distortion. But, when I ask if it matters if the total is below audiblity you say that is too simplistic. Well, why not clue us in as to why that is too simplistic? It seems a logical as the nose on your face. Can't you logically support your beliefs?

3. I have mentioned that recording quality and room characteristics have a great effect on what you hear. But, you are only interested in the brand names of my equipment. Do you think that the listening room has no effect? If you think it does, then you can't know about my system unless you hear it in its present location. I say your assumptions are all wrong, you are focusing on electronics and they clearly have the least effect on what we hear from recordings. How can your comments be taken seriously given this error?

Respond logically to these issues or be dismissed as a lightweight.

[E-Stat]

Well, actually, no you don't. I have asked you if the harmonic structiure of distortion makes a difference is the total distortion is inaudible and you either can't or won't answer.
Let me 'splain it to you again. Take it reaalll slow so you get it. AVERAGING distortion over time is not the same as measuring instantaneous distortion. It really shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to grasp. The results are audible.


(By the way, I have an M.S. in Computer Science, I am a licensed teacher of physics, and I am a PhD student in educational psychology. )
Congratulations. Do you prefer reading graphs to listening to music?



If my points don't negate qualitative differences among amps (not all components) then why not tell me how I am wrong?
You seem to live in a world of theory devoid of exposure to what can be achieved today. Do show me these wonderful studies using gear beyond mid-fi. I'm all ears.



Then why are you asking about truth is systems, why aren't you getting that only live performance is the "truth"? Why did you only ask about my components and not my listening room and its arrageemnt?
For a PHD, you really need to work on your reading retention. I asked for your audio reference IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE YOUR OWN

Comprende? Do you get it?

You have actually raised a very good point concerning the room. Please do elaborate. Or are you insecure about that as well?


Why don't you explain how and why my point are wrong instead of ignoring them or just labling them
You would understand if you used experience and not theory as your basis. I am far more interested in applied knowledge.


1. You claim measurements of THD are useless, when I ask you for what isn't you mention TIM (a form of dynamic disortion) but I contend (and Chris provided some support) that TIM IS INCULDED IN THD measurments. This is a fact, I will give you references if you like. If TIM matters, and it is included in THD, then how can THD not matter? You didn't know this, admit it.
His claim is that today, unlike the timeline of the specific and dreadful product I mentioned, such measurements can be made. Perhaps Crown could not make the same claim today. I will ask you again to mention a preamp or power amp that you ascribe to having inaudible distortion. I await your applying theory to a tangible product.


2. You mention the haromonic structure (odd vs even) of distortion. But, when I ask if it matters if the total is below audiblity you say that is too simplistic. Well, why not clue us in as to why that is too simplistic? It seems a logical as the nose on your face. Can't you logically support your beliefs?
Your suggestion is absurd because you assume the conclusion first. Harsh upper harmonic distortion components can be audible in sufficient quantities. Evidently, you have not listened to many first generation SS designs.


3. I have mentioned that recording quality and room characteristics have a great effect on what you hear. But, you are only interested in the brand names of my equipment. Do you think that the listening room has no effect? If you think it does, then you can't know about my system unless you hear it in its present location. I say your assumptions are all wrong, you are focusing on electronics and they clearly have the least effect on what we hear from recordings. How can your comments be taken seriously given this error?
Did you read my last post? Or is it that lack of comprehension thing again? Of course recordings make a difference. Of course rooms make a difference. Are they the only factors? Of course NOT. Are you really unable to hear differences among amplifiers? Sorry to hear that.


Respond logically to these issues or be dismissed as a lightweight.
Done. Still hiding behind your cloak?

rw

[WmAx]

Well for starters, the distortion is most certainly audible when playing musical content.( I couldn't care less what happens with simplistic tones) .
I'm afraid I lost you. Distortion is 'most certainly audible when playing musical content' on what specifically? This sounds like you performed a test of some specific product. Which product? What test conditions/methdology? Was teh device thoroughly measured/analyzed to observe levels of non linearity?



That allows me to choose to either use my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII preamp in the circuit or to not at all.
Is this the preamp you referring to in the preceding statement?


The audible difference between using a good preamp and none is clear:
What testing methodology? Measurements taken to find non linearities that may be audible?


Tell me of a commerically available preamp using op amps that is capable of being completely transparent so that its presence cannot be discerned from its absence.
At the immediate moment, I'm not aware of any dedicated preamps that use op-amps as the gain stage. However, I believe some are manufactured. I can not at the immediate moment refer to any, nor do I have access to detailed measurment analysis of these preamps. However, theoretically, you could use the vunerable NJM4556 to make an audibly transparent preamp according to known human thresholds of distortions.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

I'm afraid I lost you. Distortion is 'most certainly audible when playing musical content' on what specifically?
I am referring to the traditional tests supplied by virtually all audio manufacturers that are based upon test tones only. It has been the experience of many that such has little correlation to real world conditions. Much like running a car on a dynamometer.


Is this the preamp you referring to in the preceding statement?
Yes. BTW, it has less than 0.01 distortion at 2V RMS output (typically less than 0.005% in midband) and its high level stage frequency response is +- 0.5 db 5 hz to 50 khz with -3db points below 1 hz and above 200 khz. It should be perfect, right? Guess what?



What testing methodology? Measurements taken to find non linearities that may be audible?
I'm not a "read-the-graph-to-appreciate-music" kind of guy. Hearing content in recordings masked by the preamp.



At the immediate moment, I'm not aware of any dedicated preamps that use op-amps as the gain stage.
There is a very good reason why.



However, theoretically, you could use the vunerable NJM4556 to make an audibly transparent preamp according to known human thresholds of distortions.
You and the Robot could share beautiful theory together. :)

rw

[WmAx]

I am referring to the traditional tests supplied by virtually all audio manufacturers that are based upon test tones only.
As you know, manufacturer provided specifications are not reliable.



Yes. BTW, it has less than 0.01 distortion at 2V RMS output (typically less than 0.005% in midband) and its high level stage frequency response is +- 0.5 db 5 hz to 50 khz with -3db points below 1 hz and above 200 khz. It should be perfect, right? Guess what?
Well, this does not tell me anything about it's performance into a specific load, at a specific amplitude or at specific frequencies.



There is a very good reason why.
Well, that is debatable. I believe it's because the market for most component preamps is biased to believe the operational amplifiers are 'bad sounding' even though this is contrary to the actual technical performance, which can be excellent with modern devices. The opinions concerning op amps by the audiophile market are not based on proper double blind testing methods nor on correlative data that based on perceptual research, suggests an audible difference.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

As you know, manufacturer provided specifications are not reliable.
While I agree with your statement, that is not the case with Audio Research. According to your criteria, it should be transparent. I really wish it were. I use the preamp exclusively for use with my phono source.


Well, that is debatable. I believe it's because the market for most component preamps is biased to believe the operational amplifiers are 'bad sounding' even though this is contrary to the actual technical performance, which can be excellent with modern devices. The opinions concerning op amps by the audiophile market are not based on proper double blind testing methods nor on correlative data that based on perceptual research, suggests an audible difference.
I hear what you are saying but disagree. There have been many a preamp in the past, some actually pretty good like the Dayton-Wright SPA, that were IC based. The quality of receivers and integrated amps has improved such that I believe those who go the extra step to develop preamps want performance beyond that which is generally found in those components. Simply ask the engineers as I have.

rw

[WmAx]

[.
The quality of receivers and integrated amps has improved such that I believe those who go the extra step to develop preamps want performance beyond that which is generally found in those components. Simply ask the engineers as I have.
If the engineer has spseicifc data that coorelates with known human audibility thresholds or has organized and demonstrated a valid DBT that substantiates the claims of audible performance, then that is good. If he does not, then what he claims is a performance improvment is just that, a claim.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

[If the engineer has spseicifc data that coorelates with known human audibility thresholds or has organized and demonstrated a valid DBT that substantiates the claims of audible performance, then that is good. If he does not, then what he claims is a performance improvment is just that, a claim.
You will find dissenting opinions on that topic from a number of talented engineers such as Nelson Pass, William Johnson, Lou Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Dan D'Agostino, etc.

I have already commented on why that is the case.

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53">Have you ever seen a DBT claim?</a href>

rw

[WmAx]

You will find dissenting opinions on that topic from a number of talented engineers such as Nelson Pass, William Johnson, Lou Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Dan D'Agostino, etc.
Opinons on what, specifically? Are you somewhow implying that some of these engineers have dismissed correlating measurement with known human thresholds or dismissed DBT? Certainly, they could. Certainly, that would be unscientific and a good reason to dismiss any claims of audiblity such person may make.


I have already commented on why that is the case.

Have you ever seen a DBT claim? (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53)

The feasibility of proper evaluations is another matter from the one here. Here, the matter is reliable determination of audibility. Sighted listening is not reliable. THe signficant effort required to perform a valid DBT or ABX test in no way makes sighted listening reliable.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Are you somewhow implying that some of these engineers have dismissed correlating measurement with known human thresholds or dismissed DBT?
Dismissed DBT.

rw

[WmAx]

Dismissed DBT.

rw
Ah. Then this text from my prior post is directly applicable:

That would be unscientific and a good reason to dismiss any claims of audiblity such person may make.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Ah. Then this text from my prior post is directly applicable:

That would be unscientific and a good reason to dismiss any claims of audiblity such person may make.
Tell me of an amp or preamp (either/both) that you know was developed in such a manner for which you have a high regard.

rw

[WmAx]

Tell me of an amp or preamp (either/both) that you know was developed in such a manner for which you have a high regard.

rwWell, regard in what manner? I won't make claims of audibility in this regard. But as far as technical achievement in regards to measurements, the best measuring unit I am aware is the Halcro dm10. It reminas remarkably linear at extrmely high output voltage into frequencies well beyong the audible range. Both IMD and THD are of extraordinary low levels.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/HALpFIG5.jpg

Stereophile text: Fig.5 Halcro dm10 line stage, THD+N (%) vs frequency at (from bottom to top): 10V balanced into 100k ohms and 600 ohms, 7V unbalanced into 100k ohms and 600 ohms

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Halpfig7.jpg
IMD Products


The complimenting power amp by Halcro is the of the same stature. Indeed, if I was a rich man with excess money --- I would be tempted to purchase this equipment just for show. :-)

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Well, regard in what manner?
Admiring specs is ok, but I was really curious as to your sonic preferences. My favorite preamp thus far (have not seriously auditioned the VTL 7.5) - and waaay out of my budget is the C-J ART II. While I haven't heard the Halcro preamp, I am told by a trusted ear who has that it is wonderfully detailed, but a touch sterile.

You chose a $15k preamp. Are there any less expensive models that fit your "inaudible distortion" criteria ?

rw

[DMK]

Admiring specs is ok, but I was really curious as to your sonic preferences. My favorite preamp thus far (have not seriously auditioned the VTL 7.5) - and waaay out of my budget is the C-J ART II. While I haven't heard the Halcro preamp, I am told by a trusted ear who has that it is wonderfully detailed, but a touch sterile.

You chose a $15k preamp. Are there any less expensive models that fit your "inaudible distortion" criteria ?

rw

I agree with your "trusted ear". Sterile is exactly how I would describe the sound of the Halcro, although I didn't spend all that much time with it. And just to be contrary, I found the Wyetech Labs Opal preamp to be a touch more to my preference than the CJ ART II. HP and yourself disagree. Alas, it's unlikely I'll ever be able to afford either one. However, I could afford the Wyetech before the CJ at roughly half the scratch! :)

[E-Stat]

I agree with your "trusted ear". Sterile is exactly how I would describe the sound of the Halcro, although I didn't spend all that much time with it. And just to be contrary, I found the Wyetech Labs Opal preamp to be a touch more to my preference than the CJ ART II. HP and yourself disagree. Alas, it's unlikely I'll ever be able to afford either one. However, I could afford the Wyetech before the CJ at roughly half the scratch! :)
I heard the Wyetech at Seacliff some time ago. The ART II is simply amazing in its wonderfully spacious rendering of the soundstage and ultra sweet highs. While the Wyetech is very well built and quite gorgeous in person, I didn't find it to be as satisfying. Nor so with the Aesthetix Callisto, the Burmester, or the Edge. I will be the first to admit that it could be a question of system synergy. HP's system uses a pretty long run from pre to power amp. The output impedance of the C-J may be better able to drive the longer cables (albeit they are low cap Valhallas throughout). Here is the system as of May of this year:

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/hprack04_small.jpg">

On one of his visits, Harry Weisfeld suggested Harry try the Scoutmaster with the TNT's motor drive, SDS controller, and disk clamp. The result was quite good for significantly less money than the TNT-HRX. The Burmester 969/970 CDP remains in a class by itself sonically.

rw

[DMK]

Well, system synergy is what it's all about as well as the "different strokes" theory. I'd have the Wyetech Opal/Topaz combo if I were made of money but have to settle for the less refined Wyetech Jade and a non-Wyetech tubed power monoblocks. Life ain't perfect.
I'm always relieved to learn that we don't have to worry about preamps anyway since they all sound the same unless they're broken or purposefully euphonic! Someone on A/R once posted that it was simple to design a perfectly transparent preamp, presumably an active one. I asked when this magical and magically simple preamp would first hit the market as the world is waiting! Still waiting....

Anybody with three turntables is ok in my book! :)

[WmAx]

I regard the Halcro only for the measurments, which are outstanding. I make no claims of audiblity of this or any other preamplifier. My perceptions are as flawed as anyone elses without proper DBT evaluation, thus they are simply not important. Their are plenty(most) preamps that fit my inaudible distortion criteria, as defined by known JNDs from research.

-Chris



Admiring specs is ok, but I was really curious as to your sonic preferences. My favorite preamp thus far (have not seriously auditioned the VTL 7.5) - and waaay out of my budget is the C-J ART II. While I haven't heard the Halcro preamp, I am told by a trusted ear who has that it is wonderfully detailed, but a touch sterile.

You chose a $15k preamp. Are there any less expensive models that fit your "inaudible distortion" criteria ?

rw

[E-Stat]

Their are plenty(most) preamps that fit my inaudible distortion criteria, as defined by known JNDs from research.
Does that include SS models from the 70s like Skep's Citation (had one myself in '74) or Marantz? Ever bypassed one altogether using a high output, low impedance source such as a CDP?

rw

[WmAx]

Does that include SS models from the 70s like Skep's Citation (had one myself in '74) or Marantz? Ever bypassed one altogether using a high output, low impedance source such as a CDP?

rw
I meant to refer to 'most modern' preamplifiers(late 80's on up). I don't like to assume anything about old equipment that I have not seen a full set of measurement data. It might be fine. It might not. Modern equipment typically measures very well in respect to known JNDs in all practical conditions, though.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Modern equipment typically measures very well in respect to known JNDs in all practical conditions, though.
What preamps are found in your "known JND" studies?

rw

[WmAx]

What preamps are found in your "known JND" studies?

rw
I don't mean to sound rude(so don't take it that way): this conversation is no longer interesting too me -- I just don't find discussion of equipment on a brand/model basis important unless certain unique circumstances are relvant(like the TIM condition of the IC-150).

Have a good one.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

I don't mean to sound rude(so don't take it that way): this conversation is no longer interesting too me
No offense taken.

I'm not at all surprised since every request for specifics of DBT or JND tests quoted here using the best gear alway results in silence.

rw

[mtrycraft]

No offense taken.

I'm not at all surprised since every request for specifics of DBT or JND tests quoted here using the best gear alway results in silence.

rw


JNDs are conducted in sound booth and headphones, usually, as they are after threshold detection.
You need numbers? Check out the citations.
Where are any of your citations supporting your claims?

[E-Stat]

JNDs are conducted in sound booth and headphones, usually, as they are after threshold detection.
You need numbers? Check out the citations.
Which citations? Remember when you fell flat on your face the time you finally admitted that your darling DBT studies are all done with mid-fi gear?

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18240&postcount=29">Proof? What proof?</a href">


Where are any of your citations supporting your claims?
Unlike you, I'm not dependent on the (flawed) studies of others to form my opinion. I actually have direct experience. I don't need citations.

rw

[mtrycraft]

[]Which citations? Remember when you fell flat on your face the time you finally admitted that your darling DBT studies are all done with mid-fi gear? [/b]

Actually, that is only your characterization of equipment. But then, you never have posted any citations, so you have no real basis on anything real.

More flawed papers.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.

"Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material" Soulodre, Lavoie and Norcross, Convention Paper 5892, 2003 AES.




Unlike you, I'm not dependent on the (flawed) studies of others to form my opinion. I actually have direct experience. I don't need citations.

rw

No, of course you don't need citations, you have experience. LOL.
That is what all the alien abductees say too. Or, the John Edwards crowd. Or, the creation crowd. On it goes, your experience is golden. Golden what is another issue though. Enjoy the your dream world.

[E-Stat]

More flawed papers.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.

"Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material" Soulodre, Lavoie and Norcross, Convention Paper 5892, 2003 AES.
Since these studies all predate your admission that you are unaware of any studies regarding high end equipment, I gather this is simply more irrelevant data to the question I have posed to you on several occasions. Conclusions from any well run study for anything are completely valid for that which is tested. The corollary, naturally, is that they are likewise mute on that which has not been tested. You also seem to think that there have been no improvements whatsoever in the reproduction chain in the past twenty years or you would not continue to regurgitate studies from 1983. It is the unscientific part where results from one study are extrapolated to that equipment the likes of which has never been tested (according to your lack of such references).

rw

[mtrycraft]

Since these studies all predate your admission that you are unaware of any studies regarding high end equipment, I gather this is simply more irrelevant data to the question I have posed to you on several occasions. Conclusions from any well run study for anything are completely valid for that which is tested. The corollary, naturally, is that they are likewise mute on that which has not been tested. You also seem to think that there have been no improvements whatsoever in the reproduction chain in the past twenty years or you would not continue to regurgitate studies from 1983. It is the unscientific part where results from one study are extrapolated to that equipment the likes of which has never been tested (according to your lack of such references).

rw


You asked about JNDs. I gave them to you. Now you don't like it.

If there are aubily better components in the chain, excluding speakers, There is nothing published that is reliable to any degree, but you know that, nothing is reliable for you exept your ears.
Or, you can start posting your citation list of current data.

[E-Stat]

You asked about JNDs. I gave them to you. Now you don't like it.
I "like" what I can read. You simply posted a reference with no access. Presumably, you have read the article. If so, what test gear was used? If you wish to present your "evidence", then do so in its entirety. An empty bibliography is - well an empty bibliography.


If there are aubily better components in the chain, excluding speakers, There is nothing published that is reliable to any degree, but you know that, nothing is reliable for you exept your ears.
Quite a bit is "aubily" better. Indeed, I don't share your insecurity as to require a study before accepting what my senses tell me.

rw

[RobotCzar]

The responses of e-stat clarify the position of the high-end club:

1) They want to talk about what they hear and what they own. This is key, understand that the need comes from pride of ownership and snobbery. Also, listening is easy, anybody who is not totally deaf can do it. Why stain one's brain with unpleasant facts when we can "just listen" and stroke our egos? Of course, anybody can just listen and make all kinds of claims.

2) They do make up technobabble to make their opinions sound impressive, but they really don't believe in scientific and technical stuff--they prefer just listening. Science and technical measurement can NEVER surpass the abilities of the human ear (or brain). Fluff or misconceptions are taken as fact as this lends an air of authority and even technical prowess to the opinions of club members.

3) They cannot demonstrate that they hear what they are claiming to hear, so they reject any test of their perceptions. They try to make out that the testing is somehow flawed, but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that they are really hearing (as opposed to percieving) all the "detail" and "quality" they claim.

4) No amount of technical explaination of basic scientific facts can shake their beliefs. In this they are similar to religious fundamentalists. "I know what I know and I know what I hear", they say. The scientific facts and the evidence cannot demonstrate they are wrong because they cannot BE wrong.


So, the choice clear to those becoming interested in home audio: join the high-end club and compete for snob appeal based on money spent. Indulge your sonic fantasy all you want, simply listen (as any child can) and dream up your own reaction to what you hear (a long list of made-up meaningless terms used by the club is available for your use).

Or, you can chose the rational approach. You can learn that the differences among electronic audio gear are very tiny and way below audible thesholds (which is confirmed by real tests of what humans can distinguish). You can then focus your attention on the things that really matter (like speakers and the acoustic environment) and get better (i.e., realistic) audio while saving a ton of money. Believe that DBTs show that many factors ARE audible and DO make a difference. (It's funny how the "flaws" of blind testing only crop up when they show that expensive electronics don't matter.)

I for one couldn't care less what e-stat thinks he hears. What he claims to hear could very well be what he perceives, but since that is all "in his head" then can't I get illusion (or delusion) for a lot less money? All the evdience says you can, the choice is yours

[E-Stat]

... but they really don't believe in scientific and technical stuff--they prefer just listening.
Science is fine when practiced properly. Maybe some day we'll see the kinds of evaluation studies performed with audio equipment better than has previously been tested. I know - prove such is better. Well, you will never know for sure (or truly be able to make a valid judgement until your conclusion is not based upon theory).


No amount of technical explaination of basic scientific facts can shake their beliefs.
That is true for when theory collides with practice.


You can learn that the differences among electronic audio gear are very tiny and way below audible thesholds (which is confirmed by real tests of what humans can distinguish).
And never question but accept with blind faith that such tests are inclusive of all equipment that is available. They aren't.



It's funny how the "flaws" of blind testing only crop up when they show that expensive electronics don't matter.
I have a standing question for anyone to present any such information. All Mtry could find was one audio dealer in Florida who couldn't tell the difference between his Krell (?) and a Yamaha receiver. Fine. Does you camp have any more references than one?



What he claims to hear could very well be what he perceives, but since that is all "in his head" then can't I get illusion (or delusion) for a lot less money?
The really sad part is that you totally miss the point. All products, be they consumer electronics, automobiles, clothing, appliances, or whatever - never improve when their capabilties are deemed "good enough". Good enough for whom? The great part is that all benefit from the ongoing evolution of these products. You constantly harp on price, prestige, and one-upmanship. While you will find such folks in any hobby, that position is not representative of all of us. Yes, price-no-object, I would love to have Harry Pearson's evaluation system. I have heard it in several incarnations over the past couple of years and it is quite simply staggering in its ability to create a holographic presentation of the best musical recordings. Is then anything less than that somehow worthless? Of course not. It is those hideously expensive prototype anythings that ultimately better products for all of us. Twenty years ago, the "perfect sound forever" CD format emerged. The objective camp went straight to the graphs and declared it so. After all, they had written proof ! It wasn't long before those of us who are enthusiastic music lovers quickly realized that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. The sound was far from "perfect" (whatever that is). Eventually, the engineers translated the necessary "audiophile" lingo to figure out what was wrong on several fronts. Now anyone can buy a $69 Toshiba player that is a killer unit for the money. That would not have been the case if everyone just blindly accepted the initial claims.

As for your reference to "discussing equipment", it is entirely relevant when anyone makes a claim, especially you absolutists, to ask on what you have performed your tests. Test are valid for that which is tested. Let me say that again. TESTS ARE VALID FOR THAT WHICH IS TESTED. I have yet to see a DBT test on anything that remotely approaches an evaluation system like Pearson's. I say his in a loose sense of the word - it is all under loan by the manufacturers. It is not owned by him and thus not a subject for "pride of ownership". What I find quite compelling about hearing that system is that it makes me so much more aware of shortcomings in other systems, most assuredly including my own. How else would you characterize hearing for the first time new levels of detail, rhythmic lines, etc. on recordings that you have previously heard hundreds of times? BTW, does that then make me any less happy with that of my own? Am I going to beg, borrow, and steal to buy $20k worth of Nordost Valhalla cable? Of course not. My system is not a status symbol (or would be a very poor one since most of the populace has no idea what it is) - it is a means of enjoying music to the fullest. Speaking of music, I rarely hear you objectivists discuss music. Is it all about the specs like for WmAx? My "camp" would love nothing more than for everyone to be able to experience the supersystems. Dumbing down the discussion benefits no one, IMHO.

rw