Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    70

    Tell me what these spec's mean to me

    I am trying to decide between two CD players, the NAD C521BEE and the C542 which is about $200.00 more.
    From comparing the spec and features of the 2, besides outputs and inputs, and one haveing 12 volt trigger and HDCD there much the same except the C542 has-
    Nichion "MUSE" Capacitor's, does not say if the C521BEE has or not, Make a diffrence or not?
    The output impedence is 150 ohms compared to 300 ohms on the BEE, a noticable diffrence?
    Thats about all that I see on the sheets that are diffrent besides the Display.
    Based on this would it be a better performing unit?
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark4583
    I am trying to decide between two CD players, the NAD C521BEE and the C542 which is about $200.00 more.
    From comparing the spec and features of the 2, besides outputs and inputs, and one haveing 12 volt trigger and HDCD there much the same except the C542 has-
    Nichion "MUSE" Capacitor's, does not say if the C521BEE has or not, Make a diffrence or not?
    The output impedence is 150 ohms compared to 300 ohms on the BEE, a noticable diffrence?
    Thats about all that I see on the sheets that are diffrent besides the Display.
    Based on this would it be a better performing unit?
    Thanks
    No, these "specs" have virtually no meaning at all in terms of "better" performance. But I have two questions for you:

    1. What are you going to be "feeding" the output of the CD player into?

    2. Why have you narrowed your choices down to two units - both from NAD? Have you been taken in by their marketing hype - which leaves me so totally turned off that I wouldn't consider buying a NAD product ever, at any price? They violate a cardinal rule in business that says - " ... whatever you do, you do NOT "knock" or denigrate your competition".

    There are a raft of competing models from which to choose from the likes of Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Sherwood, and Yamaha. Nearly all sell for approx. the same price (or less) as the NADs and most of them weighing more than the two NADs (which both weigh in at a measly 9 lbs.). In an electro-mechanical device such as a CD player, a DVD player, a VCR, or a cassette deck, weight is a good indicator of how substantial is the "build quality".

    Hope this helps you
    woodman

    I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
    Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    70
    well its realy between the Nad's or the Azur's 640A and 640C, and there within my price range and I see many positive reviews for both setups, ive looked at many others and these are what I like.

  4. #4
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark4583
    I am trying to decide between two CD players, the NAD C521BEE and the C542 which is about $200.00 more.
    From comparing the spec and features of the 2, besides outputs and inputs, and one haveing 12 volt trigger and HDCD there much the same except the C542 has-
    Nichion "MUSE" Capacitor's, does not say if the C521BEE has or not, Make a diffrence or not?
    The output impedence is 150 ohms compared to 300 ohms on the BEE, a noticable diffrence?
    Thats about all that I see on the sheets that are diffrent besides the Display.
    Based on this would it be a better performing unit?
    Thanks
    Some of the price differential is due to having optical outputs on the 542, separate power supplies for analog and digital sections, and better internal components. Arguably, those are all potentially better. I'd see if I could audition each one in my home for a day or two.

    While having lower output impedance is not inherently better, it can mean that you may be able to drive your amplifier directly by using attenuators instead of a preamp. I find that does improve the sound quality in one of my systems.

    rw

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dhaka
    Posts
    34

    Do not go for nad.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodman
    No, these "specs" have virtually no meaning at all in terms of "better" performance. But I have two questions for you:

    1. What are you going to be "feeding" the output of the CD player into?

    2. Why have you narrowed your choices down to two units - both from NAD? Have you been taken in by their marketing hype - which leaves me so totally turned off that I wouldn't consider buying a NAD product ever, at any price? They violate a cardinal rule in business that says - " ... whatever you do, you do NOT "knock" or denigrate your competition".

    There are a raft of competing models from which to choose from the likes of Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Sherwood, and Yamaha. Nearly all sell for approx. the same price (or less) as the NADs and most of them weighing more than the two NADs (which both weigh in at a measly 9 lbs.). In an electro-mechanical device such as a CD player, a DVD player, a VCR, or a cassette deck, weight is a good indicator of how substantial is the "build quality".

    Hope this helps you
    Quote:

    All I have to say is please do not go for Nad, please do go for Marantz SACD 8400 for buddegt pricing cd player. You will not be regret that you have done it.

    Unquote:

    Rgds,
    bappy

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark4583
    I am trying to decide between two CD players, the NAD C521BEE and the C542 which is about $200.00 more.
    From comparing the spec and features of the 2, besides outputs and inputs, and one haveing 12 volt trigger and HDCD there much the same except the C542 has-
    Nichion "MUSE" Capacitor's, does not say if the C521BEE has or not, Make a diffrence or not?
    The output impedence is 150 ohms compared to 300 ohms on the BEE, a noticable diffrence?
    Thats about all that I see on the sheets that are diffrent besides the Display.
    Based on this would it be a better performing unit?
    Thanks
    I agree with woodman that you are looking at the wrong "specs". The audible specs of CD players are quite similar (and near the maximum possible with the redbook standard) which is why some people claim people can't hear differences among them.

    Usually the frequency response of CD players is similar to that of an amp (i.e., nearly perfect). There can be differences in distortion and noise, particularly at high frequencies. You should look at distortion about 18 KHz and noise in general to distinguish the performance of the players. Of course, you are likely to find the differences are so small as to be inaudible. Therefore one is left with using "build quality" as one way to distinguish the players (sorry, no specs for this and you can't even assume that more expensive players are better built). The last distinguishing trait you do mention, features. I'd go by features, although I'd question whether things like HDCD support is a feature at all. Ouptuts and inputs ARE features of value.

    As for weight, manufacturers have been known to add extra body metal to increase the weight of "special editition" components. There is, of course, no difference in performance or longevity unless you tend to bash the case.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Use your ears

    Although spec sheets may have some value in deciding what models to audition they are almost meaningless when it comes to sound quality.

    Find a source that will let you listen at home or in a high quality audio environment (not in a big box retail emporium). Prefereably for a few days, put some effort in it, this stuff lasts for many years so you will probably have it a long time.

    Manufacturers that brag about special parts do so because it costs them more. It is possible if not guaranteed that a manufacturer that applies the extra effort and cost will also use more effort in other areas of construction and design. Usually this is a good sign and these kind of efforts should move them higher on your possibilities list.

    In the end the only thing that matters is how it sounds to you. If you hear no difference and the reliability seems equivalent buy the cheaper unit. If you don't know how to listen for those things that change form one manufacturer to the next, get someone with more experience to teach you. ( Danger: Learning how to listen carefully may cause irreversable damage to your wallet)

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Although spec sheets may have some value in deciding what models to audition they are almost meaningless when it comes to sound quality.
    Perhaps hermanv means that specs for components other than speakers are meaningless because such components are all good enough these days that people cannot hear any differences among them (as both the specs and testing suggests).

    He may also mean that the specs provided are inadequate for judging a component (beyond audible differences). In this case, he is partially right, a buyer should seek about as much data as possible in making a judgement, not just what the manufacturer (and the marketers) want to tell you.

    But, alas, I fear he means that there is no relation between measurements and reality. The implication is that our senses detect that which cannot be measured, which doesn't make any sense to me. This is high end mythology without any support beyond the fact that the subjective perceptions of listeners do not relate to specs--which IS supported by data. Listeners hear lots of things as being different for a host of reasons other than specs (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and expectations). Those things will never show up in specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Find a source that will let you listen at home or in a high quality audio environment (not in a big box retail emporium). Prefereably for a few days, put some effort in it, this stuff lasts for many years so you will probably have it a long time.
    You cannot "just listen" and get the truth for reasons mentioned above. Listening at home, is a very good idea. Listening in ANY store is suspect and should never be the basis of a purchase.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Manufacturers that brag about special parts do so because it costs them more. It is possible if not guaranteed that a manufacturer that applies the extra effort and cost will also use more effort in other areas of construction and design. Usually this is a good sign and these kind of efforts should move them higher on your possibilities list.
    Actually, too much bragging about things that do no matter is a sign of trying to appeal to the high end. In such cases, be prepared to pay more for nameplate status with little or no audible differences (except among speakers).

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    In the end the only thing that matters is how it sounds to you. If you hear no difference and the reliability seems equivalent buy the cheaper unit. If you don't know how to listen for those things that change form one manufacturer to the next, get someone with more experience to teach you. ( Danger: Learning how to listen carefully may cause irreversable damage to your wallet)
    If the only thing you care about is how it sounds "to you" without regard to other goals (e.g. accuracy to live performance), then by all means indulge your subjective side. Just don't pretend that your results apply to anybody but yourself.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Measurements and hearing

    I hadn't looked at this thread for a long time, so I appologize for a very late reply.

    Originally posted by ROBOT_CZAR
    But, alas, I fear he means that there is no relation between measurements and reality. The implication is that our senses detect that which cannot be measured, which doesn't make any sense to me. This is high end mythology without any support beyond the fact that the subjective perceptions of listeners do not relate to specs--which IS supported by data. Listeners hear lots of things as being different for a host of reasons other than specs (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and expectations). Those things will never show up in specs.
    I am an EE and disagree that we hear things that can not be measured. I would rather say that there are a very large number of possible measurements that are not being performed. Additonally the measurement range of any but the very best test equipment believe it or not is not as good as human hearing. Musicians can easily tell you the frequency of a given note in a complex piece, test equipment is very poor at this if the note is short and mixed in with others

    An example: I know of no automatic testing device that will verify that low level signals are not being differentially attenuated in the pressence of varying high level signals - huh? What I mean is that one thing that expensive electronics seems to do better to my ears is that quality we audiophiles call harmonic sustain. The ability to hear a single note die off slowly even thought the rest of the musicians have moved on. This is quite difficult to measure and as far as I know it isn't done. I could think of other measurements that aren't performed but I admit that I have little idea how any of these measurements in particular relate to those sound qualities audiophiles value.

    As another example I own a Conrad Johnson power amplifier, the distortion specification is 1%. It sounds much better than an inexpensive receiverr whose distortion is only .01% The distortion number is interesting and might be used to gauge the quality of a design but has little value in gauging the quality of the sound.

    This topic could use a very long discusion, maybe it's own thread. But it isn't safe to say every possible parameter of a design is already being measured so we can't say whether or not human hearing can hear things that measurments can not measure. But for now we can say for certain that some equipment qualites are simply not being measured

  10. #10
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    An example: I know of no automatic testing device that will verify that low level signals are not being differentially attenuated in the pressence of varying high level signals - huh? What I mean is that one thing that expensive electronics seems to do better to my ears is that quality we audiophiles call harmonic sustain. The ability to hear a single note die off slowly even thought the rest of the musicians have moved on. This is quite difficult to measure and as far as I know it isn't done.
    What a wonderful description for that phenomena I was enjoying this evening. The opening band from the Harry Potter "Prisoner of Azkaban" soundtrack, for example, begins with a familiar xylophone tune. With most systems you hear the fundametal as the keys are struck but not the subtle metallic overtones as the harmony develops with the strings and woodwinds.

    rw

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    This topic could use a very long discusion, maybe it's own thread. But it isn't safe to say every possible parameter of a design is already being measured so we can't say whether or not human hearing can hear things that measurments can not measure. But for now we can say for certain that some equipment qualites are simply not being measured
    Agreed - I find it very hard to believe that we humans know everything about this subject. I think it's obvious (to my ears) that we aren't measuring everything there is to measure; hence we audiophiles hear things in a component that aren't measured or, as you discovered, a piece with less stellar measurements actually performs better than a piece measuring the opposite.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    What a wonderful description for that phenomena I was enjoying this evening. The opening band from the Harry Potter "Prisoner of Azkaban" soundtrack, for example, begins with a familiar xylophone tune. With most systems you hear the fundametal as the keys are struck but not the subtle metallic overtones as the harmony develops with the strings and woodwinds.

    rw
    Nice example - wish I could think of a specific one at the moment but I hear this phenomena with regularity on my main system and I do not with my second system. There is certainly a scientific explanation for this but we don't seem to know what it might be at present. But it's one reason why it's bad advice to purchase a component based on specs alone.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Steady state measurements

    Most electronic measuring equipment applies a steady state signal to the device under test and then analyzes an also steady state output.

    For example: a distortion analyzer might apply a 1V rms 1KHz. sine wave to the input of an amplifier (possibly for minutes at a time). On the output the instrument then filters out the 1KHz and displays by various means everything that's left. Then the whole spectrum of excess signal is usually summed into a single measurement called distortion. If you see distortion plots in Stereophile reviews for example, you will notice that the distortion spectrum and waveform itself varies all over the place yet the distortion is still usually quoted as a single number.

    It is a useful tool, but very little about that process mimics music or how we hear things.

    Most other equipment performance measurements are also long duration steady state signals.

    Imagine auditioning audiophile equipment by listening to a single note several minutes long made by a flute and deciding which piece of electronics was best with this technique. (I picked the flute because I think it is closer to a sine wave note, unlike virtually every other instrument)

    Music of course is a series of stops and starts both slow and fast, of all different notes or pitches, of several instruments each with a different harmonic structure with each musician starting and stopping his contribution a somewhat different times and all at various volumes. Measuring equipment simply does not do this. For me there is little surprize that the correlation between measurements and the sound quality of music is far from absolute.

    Certainly much more complex measuring equipment could be invented. Although I do not work in an audio design capacity I do know that design shops in the end do listen to their product, some for extended periods . If measurement was the end all of sound quality they wouldn't bother

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Most electronic measuring equipment applies a steady state signal to the device under test and then analyzes an also steady state output.

    For example: a distortion analyzer might apply a 1V rms 1KHz. sine wave to the input of an amplifier (possibly for minutes at a time). On the output the instrument then filters out the 1KHz and displays by various means everything that's left. Then the whole spectrum of excess signal is usually summed into a single measurement called distortion. If you see distortion plots in Stereophile reviews for example, you will notice that the distortion spectrum and waveform itself varies all over the place yet the distortion is still usually quoted as a single number.

    It is a useful tool, but very little about that process mimics music or how we hear things.

    Most other equipment performance measurements are also long duration steady state signals.

    Imagine auditioning audiophile equipment by listening to a single note several minutes long made by a flute and deciding which piece of electronics was best with this technique. (I picked the flute because I think it is closer to a sine wave note, unlike virtually every other instrument)

    Music of course is a series of stops and starts both slow and fast, of all different notes or pitches, of several instruments each with a different harmonic structure with each musician starting and stopping his contribution a somewhat different times and all at various volumes. Measuring equipment simply does not do this. For me there is little surprize that the correlation between measurements and the sound quality of music is far from absolute.

    Certainly much more complex measuring equipment could be invented. Although I do not work in an audio design capacity I do know that design shops in the end do listen to their product, some for extended periods . If measurement was the end all of sound quality they wouldn't bother
    For a professed EE, you are making some pretty strange claims.

    First, a sine wave is not at all "steady state" but is in fact constantly changing its instantaneous value. This is a very common mistake made by high end pundits. I expect more from an EE. Summing the harmonic distortion components of a single frequency does result in a single number (THD), but one can look at the products if one wants to. A single number makes sense as you know that any single harmonic is less than that single number. I have suggested that people might want to check THD at high frequenciies to compare amp performance (not audible differences as there aren't any).

    I don't know on what basis you claim that scientific measurments of reproduced sound (or electrical signals) do not "mimic" how we hear. Of course they do, that is why scientists make these measurements. The physical quantitiites measured like distortion, noise, dynamic range, flatness of frequency response exactly quantify reproduced sound. We must hear on the basis of these factors as they are all there is. The truth is that no human can detect differences better than instruments, in fact human hearing is subject to all kinds of subjecitve errors (audble illustions and effects due to expectations and context) that are useful for survival, but inaccurate.

    You are completely wrong regarding simple versus complex audio signals. People are much better able to detect distortion, noise, and frequency flatness when pure sine tones are used (as opposed to music). So judging your system with a flute might be a good idea. As an EE it is astounding that you do not seem to accept that complex audio (and electrical) signals are made up of a set of pure sine waves. Complex signals are simply the superposition of simple sine waves. How is it you don't know this or don't believe it?

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "I expect more from an EE."

    So did every professor of electrical engineering and mathematics I ever ran into. He should get a refund of his tuition money. You don't make it through any accredited engineering school in the United States and get an EE degree without understanding exactly how Fourier and LaPlace analysis of complex waveforms allows you to analyze, measure, and predict the performance of analog audio amplifiers using sine wave test tones to poduce the stadard Bodie plot of amplitude and phase versus frequency. It is deRigeur in course after course after course.

    The problem with the commonly used measuring system for audio amplifiers is that they were invented at a time when far more primitive poorly performing equipment was the best that could be made and so these tests were more than adequate to characterize their differences and deviations from the textbook ideal model. While they can still show you salient differences and flaws of junky class A and class AB vacuum tube amplifiers audiophiles love with their irregular frequency response and high harmonic and intermodulation distortion, and input/output nonlinearities they are not sensitive enough to detect more subtle differences between equipment which otherwise measure textbook perfect because the tests do not mimic real world conditions. The problem is particularly obvious with power amplifiers measured on a test bench with an 8 ohm non inductive resistor as a load and then it gets connected in the real world to a complex reactive network consisting of several loudspeaker drivers and inductive and capacitave reactance components. Even worse, the loudspeaker drivers aren't even an entirely passive load. It is not that the measurements could not be refined and improved to differentiate these amplifiers to help us make more accurate evaluations, it's just that it hasn't been done yet. The most likely reason is that among sane rational people (not audiophiles) there are many amplifiers which fulfill all of their expectations perfectly. And in the rare and unusual case where someone needs a special amplifier to perform a special application in a lab such as to drive a special transducer, if they can't buy one, they design a custom unit to serve their immediate needs. The apparant mania among some audiophiles to endlessly try one amplifier after another after another and then purchase the oddball unit which is unique because of its gross defects is a sick obsession peculiar to them alone. It's the only explanation for the ability for some people to make and sell units costing $300 worth of parts including antique radio tubes for $30,000.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "I expect more from an EE."

    So did every professor of electrical engineering and mathematics I ever ran into. He should get a refund of his tuition money. You don't make it through any accredited engineering school in the United States and get an EE degree without understanding exactly how Fourier and LaPlace analysis of complex waveforms allows you to analyze, measure, and predict the performance of analog audio amplifiers using sine wave test tones to poduce the stadard Bodie plot of amplitude and phase versus frequency. It is deRigeur in course after course after course.

    The problem with the commonly used measuring system for audio amplifiers is that they were invented at a time when far more primitive poorly performing equipment was the best that could be made and so these tests were more than adequate to characterize their differences and deviations from the textbook ideal model. While they can still show you salient differences and flaws of junky class A and class AB vacuum tube amplifiers audiophiles love with their irregular frequency response and high harmonic and intermodulation distortion, and input/output nonlinearities they are not sensitive enough to detect more subtle differences between equipment which otherwise measure textbook perfect because the tests do not mimic real world conditions. The problem is particularly obvious with power amplifiers measured on a test bench with an 8 ohm non inductive resistor as a load and then it gets connected in the real world to a complex reactive network consisting of several loudspeaker drivers and inductive and capacitave reactance components. Even worse, the loudspeaker drivers aren't even an entirely passive load. It is not that the measurements could not be refined and improved to differentiate these amplifiers to help us make more accurate evaluations, it's just that it hasn't been done yet. The most likely reason is that among sane rational people (not audiophiles) there are many amplifiers which fulfill all of their expectations perfectly. And in the rare and unusual case where someone needs a special amplifier to perform a special application in a lab such as to drive a special transducer, if they can't buy one, they design a custom unit to serve their immediate needs. The apparant mania among some audiophiles to endlessly try one amplifier after another after another and then purchase the oddball unit which is unique because of its gross defects is a sick obsession peculiar to them alone. It's the only explanation for the ability for some people to make and sell units costing $300 worth of parts including antique radio tubes for $30,000.
    Measurements might be a source of bias. If a listener believes in measurements, he might be inclined to think a solid-state amp which measures well will sound better than a tube amp which doesn't measure as well, despite a contrary preference of any audiophiles who have tried the two amps. He wants measurements to be the only indicator of quality, so he convinces himself that they are the only indicator, and thinks anyone who disagrees with him doesn't like good sound. However, although I am suggesting a technical background could color a listener's judgement, I have doubts about the strength of such bias. I have always been skeptical of the notion that a listener's perception is ruled by his attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
    Last edited by mystic; 05-11-2005 at 10:51 AM.

  17. #17
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mystic
    I have always been skeptical of the notion that a listener's perception is ruled by his attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
    Especially when, for whatever characteristic(s) are assumed to "color" the perception are essentially the same. On more than one occasion, I have compared two completely new-to-me components at an audio reviewer friend's house that cost about the same, are of the same design (either both tube or both SS) and yet sound different to me. Line stages and power amps alike. That rules out ownership, brand, tube vs SS, and price. What's left?

    It was all academic to me anyway considering their price!

    rw

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That rules out ownership, brand, tube vs SS, and price. What's left?
    rw
    The ability of the power amplifier to provide adequate current slews to the load in a timely fashion, without being sensitive to input ground currents, low impedance power supply wiring stray magnetic fields, capacitor bank geometric magnetic fields, feedback loop coupling to all that high current hash within the chassis (after the T-network, of course).

    None of these aspects are being considered...none..simply because the designers are rather clueless as to the actual nature and sensitivity of human stereophonic hearing, and how sensitive we really are to differential soundstage images..course, e/m theory helps a bit..but, first, the need for high level theoretical field understandings must be realized..till then, it's pissin in the wind..

    It's a crying shame...somebody oughta do sumptin about it..you'd think some high end audio amp designer would care? (that, more than anything else I've seen, is the biggest shame....apathy..)

    Cheers, John

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I don't see you doing anything about it John. And don't say you don't have the skill. Instead of wasting your spare time with those stupid wires, why do you take on a really big challenge and reinvent amplifier measurements or are you going to leave it to rank amateurs like you-know-who who tried to uninvent a hundred years of distortion testing and three hundred years of matematics. If not you who? If not now when? How about invading Nicaragua instead!

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I don't see you doing anything about it John. !
    Oh YAH!! well, same to you...
    or:
    Back at ya!!
    or:
    So!!!
    or:...kinda runnin out of dumb things to say, so I'll stop..

    Hey, how's it goin Skep? Been a while, I haven't actually seen much here to talk about..it's kinda dead..

    But yes, I have been doin somethin about it....besides just complain..:-)

    Finished most of the honeydoo's, plus removed and touched up the minivan slider door..luckily, rustoleum gloss primer matches plymouth minivan white exactly..coupla coats, and voila...can't see where the rust spot was..it was inside the door not out, go figure..

    Workin on the aspect of human hearing which corresponds to localization and depth perception..the 3 D thing. It is somewhat incredible the IID's I'm getting when I consider the 3 D placement of an image...Far below that which is considered audible in the current research literature..so, I' m carefully going through the calcs, the assumptions, everything, to make sure I'm doin it correctly before I present it to some of the neurological researcher types..(regardless of what I show w/r to all the amp stuff I stated in the previous post, it is of prime importance to consider whether it is within the realm of audibility...I'm not entirely gone..:-))

    Actually, had a really good discussion with a guy on tweaks concerning the use of dedicated lines and the loop pickup on the grounds....I hope he continues as I requested, and measures the source impedance of the loop. He measured 200 mVolts from ground to ground while a 1500 watt space heater was on one of the runs, so that signal was not IR induced, but rather, B dot..I want him to load ground to ground with a 1 ohm resistor and measure so that the IC ground current can be determined..amps do so little about ground currents coming in on the IC shield..

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    And don't say you don't have the skill. Instead of wasting your spare time with those stupid wires, why do you take on a really big challenge and reinvent amplifier measurements or are you going to leave it to rank amateurs like you-know-who who tried to uninvent a hundred years of distortion testing and three hundred years of matematics. If not you who? If not now when? How about invading Nicaragua instead!
    Hey, no skill..but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...:-)

    Actually, most of it is just re-arrangement of measurements, to consider the devices as three port things, where the input port has ties to the power port...and, real loads, not those dale NI thingies..

    As for time...I'm in no hurry, it's just a hobby for me..

    As for wires?...first, I'd like to understand the simple things..I've a ways to go before I understand how wires work..

    Cheers, John

  21. #21
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    The ability of the power amplifier to provide adequate current slews to the load in a timely fashion...
    Look again at Mystic's quote to which I replied. My question responds to the assertion that claimed sonic differences are solely due to attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. So which attitude, belief, or expectation of mine for these entirely new and completely unrelated amplifiers and line stages is responsible for my finding differences?

    I completely agree that the standard metrics that are currently supplied with amplifiers are inadequate to fully describe their character. Your suggestions may be (part of) the key.

    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    Actually, most of it is just re-arrangement of measurements, to consider the devices as three port things, where the input port has ties to the power port...and, real loads, not those dale NI thingies..
    I never did get an answer from skeptic if distortion measurements are so definitive, then why is it that more than one manufacturer's current product has worse results than their designs of two or three decades prior? I think you'll find that those engineers would agree their current product is better, despite the apparent discrepancy.

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 05-12-2005 at 10:18 AM.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Look again at Mystic's quote to which I replied. My question responds to the claim that claimed sonic differences are solely due to attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. So which attitude, belief, or expectation of mine for these entirely new and completely unrelated amplifiers and line stages is responsible for my finding differences?
    rw
    Yes, I did read both the quote and your response..you clearly pointed out that you have perceived differences in amplifiers for which you did not have attitudes, beliefs, or expectations..you stated complete detachment of ownership. And I tend to agree that given expectations, perception can be skewed..my statement was in response to your "what else" statement, and leads towards the changing of metrics.

    What has been argued in the past is that... since the common metrics used now do not explain what is "heard", then, either the hearing is flawed, or the metrics are.

    I find currently accepted metrics, based on currently accepted understanding of human localization and depth perception, to be somewhat inadequate to define spacial differential perceptions. Once human binaural perception capabilities are more readily understood, then re-defining the metrics upon which we define "goodness" of amplifiers will be a trivial matter. The amp guru's are not gonna have any problem figuring out how to test the product, and once a test can find what it needs to, figuring out what to do to the amp topology is gonna be a breeze..

    Once I understood the mechanism behind the coupling between the power cord and the amplifier input (check out my discussion with Dave at AA tweaks), how to eliminate the power cord broadcast is trivial, as is the methodology behind modification of the amp front end to remove the IC ground current coupling effects..eventually this will become standard for all amps, but the big guys have to be shown that the problem exists..then they won't need to even see the techniques I employ to eliminate it...it will be obvious..you know, an "exercise for the reader".

    Cheers, John

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I never did get an answer from skeptic if distortion measurements are so definitive, then why is it that more than one manufacturer's current product has worse results than their designs of two or three decades prior? I think you'll find that those engineers would agree their current product is better, despite the apparent discrepancy.rw
    I believe the issue is one of "worse results"....how were those worse results determined? by measurements, by listening? Listening, for me, raises the ugly spectre of the GSIC flim flamm...how to do it without the results being tainted by that darn expectation bias stuff..

    My gut says the measurements aren't looking at soundstage metrics, but simply FFT's of the product under low bandwidth loads..FFT's cannot determine adequacy of soundstage reproduction..tools do not exist to do that yet..they will, but not yet.

    Distortion measurements are definitive for monophonic accuracy.

    Cheers, John.

    PS...hold still, will ya...you edited while I replied...:-)

  24. #24
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    ...my statement was in response to your "what else" statement, and leads towards the changing of metrics.
    Got it. You likewise dismiss ABEs as the sole source as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    ...how were those worse results determined?
    I'm referring to simple THD. Higher distortion specs.

    I'm sure skeptic will enlighten you as to how three hundred years of mathematics supports the notion that a single weighted number quantifies all the audible factors of how electronics reproduce a musical signal.

    rw

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Got it. You likewise dismiss ABEs as the sole source as well.rw
    I would ask you to please not put words in my mouth, or make statements of my attitudes or beliefs..It would be easier for me to form an opinion on a specific topic if I knew what the topic was...

    What is an "ABE"...and, why do I dismiss it as a "sole source"??? Curious minds want to know...:-) I'm curious ( I will admit, though, that ABE's aren't too bad, but I prefer Jacksons, Hamiltons, Grants, and Franklins...I recall Chase's are no longer printed..)

    Also, why did you feel the need to attribute that to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm referring to simple THD. Higher distortion specs.rw
    That is what I believed you were referring to.. And, as I stated, those numbers are more than adequate for monophonic reproduction..give or take...unless, of course, you include TIM, time based instability as a result of the output section being unable to follow the setpoint, invoking saturation in an intermediate gain stage. Or, four quadrant damping factor, driving a reactive load....and temporal accuracy in all four quadrants..that is only now in it's infancy, the papers I've seen, while woefully inadequate, are at least a start.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm sure skeptic will enlighten you as to how three hundred years of mathematics supports the notion that a single weighted number quantifies all the audible factors of how electronics reproduce a musical signal. rw
    He has presented a good argument along that line, but I'm sure his actual argument is about a set of numbers, like levels of the harmonics...The addition of a whole slew of additional frequency components to determine non-linearities is not consistent with a rather huge base of applied mathematics, which is easily capable of a deterministic understanding of non linearities with two or so different frequencies... This is simply a case of loading the belt with more and more chocolates and then speeding up the belt..in the hopes that something meaningful will pop out..there was absolutely no mathematical rigor behind J's technique, and nothing of any additional value as perceived by the big guns in signal analysis was to be found..

    If the technique had any merit, it would be in use now..HP, AP...name a biggie..

    As for skeptic's belief that that is all that is required, I do not subscribe to that notion. I believe the metrics require changing..

    It is not my intention to ignore the rather large world of test equipment and amplifier analysis techniques..that would be silly..

    It is my intention to change it..with rigorous analysis, test, and reproduceable results, not by calling people naysayers, and claiming papers were rejected because they hated me..

    Cheers, John

    PS...you seem to be intent on either picking a fight, or just arguing with me..this, I do not understand..I guess you missed me??? :-)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone using Mackie or Corwn amps?
    By grampi in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 12-31-2005, 07:21 AM
  2. The ORB verdict is in
    By hearingimpaired in forum Speakers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-03-2004, 01:29 PM
  3. Question about some specs.
    By kexodusc in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 12:29 PM
  4. Head to head audio site
    By surgeandoj in forum General Audio
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-31-2004, 06:15 AM
  5. Amp specs expressed as wattage
    By Hoho in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-22-2003, 11:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •