Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 131
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Fact = any manufacturer CAN deliberately alter the sound of a cable or cd player to sound different than the rest -- since that is so they can also make it sound more pleasing to the ear(or some people's ears). It is in their best interest to make it sound different so they can stand apart from the rest. Once this is established if a test cannot tell a difference you need another test."

    Manufacturers can change the resistance, capacitance, and inductance per unit length of a cable by changing its geometry and materials of construction. If this has any effect at all on the sound of the equipment it is connected to, that effect is unpredictable and uncontrollable. That is because it depends on the paramaters of the equipment so it is conceivable although not necessarily proven that a particular cable would affect the sound of one sound system one way and another differently or not at all. And it would obtain this effect by changing the overall frequency response. This method if it works at all is without doubt, the dumbest way to make such a change. It is ineffecient, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and very expensive IF it even works. Frequency response that deviates from "flat" is what is termed linear distortion and is correctable and controllable predictably and inexpensively by using equalization. Every professional sound engineer knows this, uses it as one of his primary tools in his bag of tricks, and you will therefore rarely if ever find a professionally installed sound system which does not incorporate at least one equalizer. You say you don't like equalization because it creates distortion? Argue with the guy who built the mixing board your precious vinyl recordings were made on, the guy who built the recording studio, and the guy who tweaked the knobs and dials on that console to get you the sound you like so much. You can also argue with the guy who invented the LP and found that if he didn't equalize the signal being fed to the cutting head, he could never get the signal on the record. Of course it had to be equalized on playback and that's in your preamplifier. Let's not forget about the guy who builds tape recorders including the ones the recording was made on and the one it was mixed down on. Both used massive equalization on both recording and playback to get the signal on the tape (except for those rare direct to disc recordings which could not be edited at all.) And then there's DOLBY. For those who cringe at the very thought of equalization, this is a nightmare. Professional Dolby "A" has four different bands of equalization and not only that, they are not static like the others, they are dynamic. The degree of equalization depends on the level of the signal going on to the tape and coming off off it changing from instant to instant. Heaven help you if it was not properly calibrated.

    Can't use an equalizer because you can't adjust it? Too bad. I've found calibrated microphones and spectrum analyzers that are normally supplied for home systems useless for this purpose. It takes a musically trained and acute ear and a lot of patience to get it to sound close to flat. But that should be no problem for people who can hear the difference between one cable and another and take the time and trouble to listen to so many of them to pick out just the right one for their sound system. Of course if you can't successfully adjust an equalizer, maybe your hearing or your acoustic memory isn't quite as good as you think it is.

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    60

    Smile Skeptic: Good Points

    A clear and lucid post. There is too much emphasis placed on cables in this "cable war". There are many other aspects in sound recreation far more important than mere cables. I would think one would want to recreate at home that which has been created in the studio and at the mastering console. Cables??? Just room acoustics alone will be more important to sound than....cables. Enuf.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    If the assertions were only made by individuals on internet forums, then I would agree with you. I do trust (and know some of) the audio press and the hearing of manufacturers of components who claim their product sounds more lifelike using other (completely unrelated) company's better cables. They have nothing to prove. Finally, I trust my own hearing in A/B testing. You might match the hearing acuity of your fellow listeners 2 & 3 if you were to use familiar systems and musical content.

    I will agree, however, that I hear more differences among interconnects than speaker cables and the latter are likely far more system dependent. My vacuum tube power amp driving electrostatic speakers situaion is particularly challenging.

    rw
    Still it remains to be proven. For years there have been attempts to get evidence of audible difference between cables of reasonable construction. There are claims and challenges. There is one standing challenge since >10 years from the Swedish Audio Technical Society to the Audio press. They may choose time, equpiment, place length, fast/slow switching, but tests need to be double blind. No one has accepted. There are challenges with price sums around. No one has tried, or at least none that I've heard about. Another blind test including people that "percieved" cable difference made a test a few years ago. They chose time, equipment and place for the test. A very expensive Transparent speaker cable against Supra Ply. The test result was exactly 50% correct guesses = random. Another report was published in the former Swedish "Electronics World". Four different systems and I believe six different cables. Result was the same as random choice. A third test was quite recently conducted here (in Swedish though):

    http://www.fivechannels.com/artiklar/kabeltest.htm

    Kimber vs Harmonic Tech: 2/7 and 3/7 correct.
    Nordost vs Supra: 3/7
    Kimber vs Nordost: 7/7
    Noname vs Kimber 3/7 and 2/7
    EKK vs Kimber: 5/7 and 3/7

    (Total was 28/56=50%.) One 7/7 result was obtained, but this is rather easy to get in a series of attempts.

    The Tag McLaren test showed no difference.

    Several previous tests have been made: I've tested Supra Ply against Linn K20 (two completely different geometries). Very very slight roll of at 20 kHz of K20. No audible difference.

    I've conducted blind tests between CD players at home: Two listernes, me included, could hear a slight difference blindly. This was caused most probably by the 0.4 dB difference in absolute level so it is not valid. I made similar tests with DACs at another location, level matched, 2 listeners. We gave up after a couple of hours. No difference. Although differences CAN be heard between some CD players, it is not easy, and many are so similar that it would require special test signal to hear a difference.

    In addition, many more blind tests have been done during the 25 years of cable debate.

    These are a few of the reasons to why I and many others are very sceptical to any claims, including yours, of audible difference. First, I have seen no data, and if there is data, was there anyone on the "objective side" that can confirm your test results? When we conducted the CD player test at the Studio, there was one sceptical person from Audioreview invited (although he did not show up for some reason). If you really want to claim an audible difference, why not conduct a proper test and include controls, if it is easy to show it?

    T

  4. #29
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    I've conducted blind tests between CD players at home: Two listernes, me included, could hear a slight difference blindly. This was caused most probably by the 0.4 dB difference in absolute level so it is not valid. I made similar tests with DACs at another location, level matched, 2 listeners. We gave up after a couple of hours. No difference. Although differences CAN be heard between some CD players, it is not easy, and many are so similar that it would require special test signal to hear a difference.T
    Thomas,

    I've done exhaustive (enough for me!) testing on CD players, single blind as DBT is too difficult to do and SBT is very simple. There was one instance where there were discernible differences in CDP's. Using my reference Sony XA20-ES player and my old CD recorder, the Pioneer PDR-509, myself and a cohort noticed repeatable sonic differences but only when listening through Sennheiser HD600 headphones through the units respective headphone jacks. Are there qualitative differences among these jacks or do you think the players actually sound different?

    On the flip side, I also tested some cheap CD players and some expensive ones against my at-the-time reference Theta transport/Dac combo. Nobody heard any difference. I have retained my Sony which at the time was being used in a second system because it has the finest transport I've ever used. It can navigate CD's that cause other players fits. The ability to actually play a CD without skipping or getting stuck is the best sonic difference I've experienced! My cable tests revealed no differences except for the poor Straight Wire Virtuoso which was tested as defective by the manufacturer after the test.

    Alas, all is not well in Objective Town. Amplification plays a significant part in the sound of my system. Preamps in particular can have identical specs and sound quite different. Ditto phono stages and all parts of the LP chain as well as speakers. However, my significant and that of others may differ. I'd say all but about 10% (arbitrary number, of course) of the final sound comes from speakers, source software and room acoustics and not necessarily in that order. But that 10% is the difference between great sound and stunning, occasionally live, sound.

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Same tired old "we can't tell the difference with the POS equipment we're using" argument. None of you guys has EVER provided test results using anything better than mid-fi gear.

    rw

    Ah, but you have the burden to demonstrate that your system makes a difference in detectng ability. Your evidence can be found under which rock? It isn't anywhere, and you are just daydreaming as much as the next golden ear, regardless of your estats or 30 years of experience that is unreliable at best. So, in essence, you are the stuck needle in the groove with no evidence to support your wild claims.
    When?
    mtrycrafts

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    [QUOTE=nusiclover] On another side,
    If speaker cables Made No difference, then there would cease to be sooo many succesful speaker cable companys out there. You can use the "marketing" card for so long, but then it becomes mute, because neither I (captain frugal himself) nor a thousand other paying customers would simply succumb to expert marketeering unless they put "magic potion" in our cables so that when i touched them we would feel euphorically happy .
    Come on, give it a rest, no cable companys are drugging us to HAVE to like their cables better. The simple truth is that, well, there are audible differences. So sorry if your ears can not dissiminate between the two. But, my ears work damn fine.
    QUOTE]


    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I suppose the psychics can really tell your future, talk to the dead. Holistic healing does heal people. John Edwards does talk to the dead, right.
    After all, if they are not for real, why do so many people continue to run after these sharlatans.

    No, marketing is everything but human nature being gullible is a tremendous asset of marketeers.

    You have a lot to learn about human nature, perception, snake oil salesmen.
    mtrycrafts

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    The difference is that I qualify my comments with respect to the system involved. You make unsupported blanket claims. Which is indeed valid for the majority of folks asking what cable they should use with their Onkyo receiver.

    rw

    You can qualify you statement with anything you like. You still don't have supporting evidence, just speculations, guesses, daydreams. But, some are very happy with dreams. Enjoy.
    mtrycrafts

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower

    Is there anyone out there who just buys things because of the enjoyment he derives from his purchases (or lack thereof) and doesn't need every other human being to act and believe exactly as he does?

    Oh, there are. Few post here though Most have to make some sort of testable claims though.
    Now only if they followed your suggestion, this place would be dead, nothing to comment on
    mtrycrafts

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    FACT = DBTs are not the answer in psychological testing.
    Thus you better be on the fence.

    You are reading the wrong books. Get better instructors.
    mtrycrafts

  10. #35
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Thomas,

    I've done exhaustive (enough for me!) testing on CD players, single blind as DBT is too difficult to do and SBT is very simple. There was one instance where there were discernible differences in CDP's. Using my reference Sony XA20-ES player and my old CD recorder, the Pioneer PDR-509, myself and a cohort noticed repeatable sonic differences but only when listening through Sennheiser HD600 headphones through the units respective headphone jacks. Are there qualitative differences among these jacks or do you think the players actually sound different?

    On the flip side, I also tested some cheap CD players and some expensive ones against my at-the-time reference Theta transport/Dac combo. Nobody heard any difference. I have retained my Sony which at the time was being used in a second system because it has the finest transport I've ever used. It can navigate CD's that cause other players fits. The ability to actually play a CD without skipping or getting stuck is the best sonic difference I've experienced! My cable tests revealed no differences except for the poor Straight Wire Virtuoso which was tested as defective by the manufacturer after the test.

    Alas, all is not well in Objective Town. Amplification plays a significant part in the sound of my system. Preamps in particular can have identical specs and sound quite different. Ditto phono stages and all parts of the LP chain as well as speakers. However, my significant and that of others may differ. I'd say all but about 10% (arbitrary number, of course) of the final sound comes from speakers, source software and room acoustics and not necessarily in that order. But that 10% is the difference between great sound and stunning, occasionally live, sound.

    There are some differences between some CD players. Headphone use takes away some of the confusion caused by room reflections and are phase correct, in contrast to a majority of the speakers on the market. There could also be some difference in the headphone output. There is one report also of a Teac player which can be heard different with and without the display on/off, but so far only using pink noise. Music was not possible.

    Now in a highend system like the Studio, signals down to 10 Hz or lower are easily percieved at high SPL as vibrations in the body. Some persons are very sensitive to changes in the vibration in the body, so an amp with a -3 dB point at 6-8 Hz may be percived as different. This is quite extreme and would not be percieved in most systems used at home.

    RIAA amps may be quite different and also provide different loads for the cartridge and sound different. For pre-amps, I guess there could be channel imbalance differences due to pot quality. Otherwise, transparent pre-amps are quite easy to construct.

    T

  11. #36
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    For pre-amps, I guess there could be channel imbalance differences due to pot quality. Otherwise, transparent pre-amps are quite easy to construct.
    Please define "transparent" as you use the term. In a previous post, you indicated that a particular Rotel amp was likewise transparent.

    rw

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Per definition, there is no way to be 100% sure of transparency due to the rules of Science. It's an approximation which covers all listening tests made with a certain amount of people at a specific time-point with the corresponding accesory equipment. If one chooses the best conditions possible and the most critical listeners and make several tests with very demanind music and signals, it is still valid for these situations only. It is up to other listeners or by repeating the tests using other equipment or music samples to either confirm or disprove the hypothesis that the component is "audibly transparent", of course using scientific methods.

    Now to the word "transparent".

    Definition of transparent is when the signal pass through a component without any audible distortion, i.e. there is no audible difference of the signal before and after it has passed a component. The test method used by Swedish Audio Technical Socieity is called F/E test or "before/after" test , which are more sensitive than standard DBT of A-B listening tests.

    One of the articles at the Sonic Design home page describes this method for power amps, but it can be applied for pre-amps too.

    http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm

    http://www.sonicdesign.se/articles.htm

    CD players are more tricky, but there are methods around that. For example the analogue signal can be converted to digital first by an A/D converter and then back to analogue with and D/A converter. By making a test with the original signal, and that passing the conversion, one can try to determine whether the signal is audible different. Since errors in conversion are in a majority of cases additive, one could then say, if there are no audible differences of the before/after signal, that the D/A converter is transparent. If there is a specific error in the A/D conversion that is exactly inverted in the D/A converter then one could say that the this specific test will fail. But a perfect inversion of an error is not very probable, and to avoid any doubts different combinations of A/Ds and D/As need to be tested. When there is a transparent D/A (it can take a year or so to do all the tests), there is a possibility to use that a reference for further testing of other CD players.



    T

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Anger is not healthy."

    That's true but if it leads to brick throwing, it is usually not as unhealthy for the throwER as for the throwEE (depending on aim---and allowing for windage.)

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    When I want to buy something pleasant to look at, I go to an art Gallery.

    When I want to buy something to wire up my speakers with, I go to Home Depot.

    I've never thought of wire as art. But then that's just me.

  15. #40
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    Per definition, there is no way to be 100% sure of transparency due to the rules of Science.
    Agreed. That is why I use high quality passive attenuators between my CDP and power amps. Although my Audio Research preamp is a good unit, I can hear the difference when I remove it from the signal path altogether. Fortunately, I do not need the added 12 of gain it provides. I use the preamp solely for vinyl playback.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    Definition of transparent is when the signal pass through a component without any audible distortion, i.e. there is no audible difference of the signal before and after it has passed a component. The test method used by Swedish Audio Technical Socieity is called F/E test or "before/after" test , which are more sensitive than standard DBT of A-B listening tests.
    I read your linked amp test procedure. You piggy-back one amp into another via some compensation circuitry with a bypass switch and make the determination from that. How do you determine the transparency of the "regular" amp first? Did the author of the test consider the fact that the "regular" amp along with the associated compensation circuitry and extra wiring itself is masking differences that may be evident only if one were to compare only the DUT?

    rw

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Agreed. That is why I use high quality passive attenuators between my CDP and power amps. Although my Audio Research preamp is a good unit, I can hear the difference when I remove it from the signal path altogether. Fortunately, I do not need the added 12 of gain it provides. I use the preamp solely for vinyl playback.



    I read your linked amp test procedure. You piggy-back one amp into another via some compensation circuitry with a bypass switch and make the determination from that. How do you determine the transparency of the "regular" amp first? Did the author of the test consider the fact that the "regular" amp along with the associated compensation circuitry and extra wiring itself is masking differences that may be evident only if one were to compare only the DUT?

    rw
    Even if the regular amp should not be completely transparent, there is no way to hear this as something arising from the test object during the switching procedure. Assuming that the test object is transparent there will be no difference during switching even if the regular amp adds distortion. If the test object is not transparent, it is most likely be heard since distortion is additive.

    If one assumes, highly unlikely, that the distortion of the regular amp some way "masks" any distortion of the test object (i.e. there is no audible difference during switching), then one can use another amp identical to the test object as regular amp. And continue to switch the regular amp to other amps. As the number of experiments increase, there is increasing power in the statistics.

    In addition, the author claims that 9/10 amps are audibly different using this method and the test critera included. Thus, there is no need to worry about any "masking distortion", is there?

    T

  17. #42
    Forum Regular Rikki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by jackz4000
    Cables??? Just room acoustics alone will be more important to sound than....cables. Enuf.
    I agree room acoustics are very underrated. People spend many $$ on equipment and where you place speakers and it what room you place them in can make a HUGE difference.

  18. #43
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    In addition, the author claims that 9/10 amps are audibly different using this method and the test critera included. Thus, there is no need to worry about any "masking distortion", is there?
    I must have missed that point and it is well taken. I suspect there are many on this board who think that most all good amps sound alike. It has been my experience that virtually all amps have a characteristic sound, regardless of otherwise similar specifications. This test bears out my assertion.

    rw

  19. #44
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    transparent pre-amps are quite easy to construct
    Terrific! Has anyone constructed one yet? When will it be on the market? Are you talking active preamps or passive as E-Stat mentioned. I have yet to hear a perfectly transparent active preamp so I'm on the edge of my seat! The closest I've heard to transparent cost $8K. Hopefully, they can figure out a way to make them transparent AND reduce the cost dramatically. I certainly can't afford $8K!

  20. #45
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Rikki
    I agree room acoustics are very underrated. People spend many $$ on equipment and where you place speakers and it what room you place them in can make a HUGE difference.
    Agreed! With my first good system, I concentrated on room acoustics until I had it right. But with many of the upgrades, room acoustics and speaker placement had to be changed. But generally people deal with room acoustics before they delve into esoteric stuff like cables but some indeed overlook that important aspect.

  21. #46
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I must have missed that point and it is well taken. I suspect there are many on this board who think that most all good amps sound alike. It has been my experience that virtually all amps have a characteristic sound, regardless of otherwise similar specifications. This test bears out my assertion.

    rw
    Preamps as well! I'm amazed at the ones that measure virtually identically and sound so different. I remember years ago the NAD/Rotel/Acurus test I went through. They all cost about the same, measured the same and couldn't have been mistaken for one another by someone with one ear! This was done blind and, miracle of miracles, the sound was EXACTLY as the so-called golden eared media called it. The NAD was soft, the Rotel clear but a bit on the bright side and the Acurus made the neighbors dog howl!

    Would you mind sharing what power amp(s) you use? If you've posted this before, I missed it.

  22. #47
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Would you mind sharing what power amp(s) you use? If you've posted this before, I missed it.
    Unlike dialtones like mtry and zapped, I have no problem discussing my systems. I use a pair of VTL MB-450s with JPS Labs Power AC+ cords in the primary system and a Threshold Stasis 3 in the garage system. I share your feelings concerning preamps as well. Although I do not consider it to be a "transparent" preamp, I use an Audio Research SP-9 MkIII for phono playback. Of all the preamps I've heard, I greatly prefer the Conrad Johnson ART II to the Burmester 808, the Aesthetix, and the Hovland. (I have not had the pleasure of hearing the ARC Ref II). It is supremely musical and lends a very large soundstage.

    System details

    rw

  23. #48
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Outstanding!

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Unlike dialtones like mtry and zapped, I have no problem discussing my systems. I use a pair of VTL MB-450s with JPS Labs Power AC+ cords in the primary system and a Threshold Stasis 3 in the garage system. I share your feelings concerning preamps as well. Although I do not consider it to be a "transparent" preamp, I use an Audio Research SP-9 MkIII for phono playback. Of all the preamps I've heard, I greatly prefer the Conrad Johnson ART II to the Burmester 808, the Aesthetix, and the Hovland. (I have not had the pleasure of hearing the ARC Ref II). It is supremely musical and lends a very large soundstage.

    System details

    rw
    I don't need as much power. The 25 watts from my tubed MaxLine Trimax monoblocs are more than sufficient to drive my 103 db/w Brentworth Sound Labs single point source speakers. My preamp is the Wyetech Labs Jade since I can't afford the Opal which is about as close to transparent as I've heard in a preamp, more so to my ears than the CJ ART (although I hasten to add that I haven't heard its latest iteration). I recently downgraded my turntable rig to a VPI HW-19 jr with upgraded platter and clamp/Rega RB300 and Ortofon Kontrapunkt B. My former rig was a Basis 2500/Graham 2.2/Benz Reference. To be honest, I miss my old Sota Cosmos and am thinking about getting another. No tweaks aside from room acoustics stuff and cables are other peoples throwaways - Monster, low rent Tara and Kimber 4PR. I've never heard a difference in cables.

    This system brings me frighteningly close to live music on occasion. I never understood the word "soundstage" until I heard the BSL speakers. I also liked the one pair of 'stats I heard - the upper echelon Maggies. All speakers have compromises and I preferrred those of the BSL's. Different strokes. Nice system! It's a good thing it all sounds the same or I'd be jealous! I must say I do enjoy you your VTL's but as I said, I don't need that much power. The Wyetech Topaz I'm in love with only has 18 watts. That said, very low powered SET's never did much for me.

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Preamps as well! I'm amazed at the ones that measure virtually identically and sound so different. I remember years ago the NAD/Rotel/Acurus test I went through. They all cost about the same, measured the same and couldn't have been mistaken for one another by someone with one ear! This was done blind and, miracle of miracles, the sound was EXACTLY as the so-called golden eared media called it. The NAD was soft, the Rotel clear but a bit on the bright side and the Acurus made the neighbors dog howl!
    Is there any data for this test? How many trials and correct guesses? What was the calibrations of levels?

    T

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I must have missed that point and it is well taken. I suspect there are many on this board who think that most all good amps sound alike. It has been my experience that virtually all amps have a characteristic sound, regardless of otherwise similar specifications. This test bears out my assertion.

    rw
    All other DBT of power amps have been negative when doing A-B testing and it has been thousands of them published. Since the test methods and critera differ from the before/after test, they are not directly comparable. By testing an amp with a bypass wire, there is a possibility to compare to the reference signal which has not passed any electronic curcuitry. Also there is a possibility to both very low power and close to maximum power of the test object (without clipping) and still listen to enjoyable volume. For what it's worth, tests I've read tend to fail amps e.g. in the low end where vibrations in the body can be felt (7-15 Hz). Also at higher power levels there have been some loss in dynamics. All taken together, it is possible that such flaws are never heard at realistics levels played at home with ordinary equipment. For example, how many have systems able to reproduce signals down to 10 Hz at high SPL with low distortion? How many have a system where the entire room is built around the specific systems with correct room dimension and lots of damping/diffusors? How many systems reproduce a perfect square wave with a frequency response of ±1 dB at listening position?

    So under more realistic conditions I would kindly disagree with you and say that many amps sound similar.



    T

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Review of Bose 901s
    By sam_pro in forum Speakers
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 07:31 AM
  2. bi-wiring
    By sleeper_red in forum Cables
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 02:47 PM

Posting Permissions

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