Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64
  1. #1
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178

    Sampling of Audio Gear

    Have a question(s) for you Audiophiles out there:

    In reviews of hi-fi equipment, professional or personal, one often reads things like: "...it reproduced the sound accurately..." or "...there was a measure of smoothness..." blah, blah, blah.

    The question is, unless the Producer, or the Artist of that music was there to give the “nod”, how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”? Maybe criticisms like "lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.

    Recently, I was having a discussion with someone regarding Cassette tape vs. Minidisc in another site. During the discussion, he claimed that his tape machine would “outperform” any Minidisc player or CD player for that matter. Although I've never had the chance of listening to this particular model, I was skeptical to say the least. I've heard and owned a handful of cassette decks in my day, but I have never thought its sound better than that of CDs or minidisc. Even with Dolby S, cassette hiss always bothered me, and it never sounded full. Sure, minidisc is compressed, but still…
    At one point, this person was so adamant that the only conclusion I could think of was that their ears simply preferred the cassette sound, but claiming “outperform” was difficult to accept.

    Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be? Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?

    With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective. So, all AV gear comparisons should only have Tables filled with data (e.g. Freq Resp., S/N ratio, etc.) and should leave listening tests out of the picture. In other words, show me the data!!

    No offense here. Just want to read your thoughts on this.
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

  2. #2
    Forum Regular harley .guy07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Mo
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    Have a question(s) for you Audiophiles out there:

    In reviews of hi-fi equipment, professional or personal, one often reads things like: "...it reproduced the sound accurately..." or "...there was a measure of smoothness..." blah, blah, blah.

    The question is, unless the Producer, or the Artist of that music was there to give the “nod”, how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”? Maybe criticisms like "lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.

    Recently, I was having a discussion with someone regarding Cassette tape vs. Minidisc in another site. During the discussion, he claimed that his tape machine would “outperform” any Minidisc player or CD player for that matter. Although I've never had the chance of listening to this particular model, I was skeptical to say the least. I've heard and owned a handful of cassette decks in my day, but I have never thought its sound better than that of CDs or minidisc. Even with Dolby S, cassette hiss always bothered me, and it never sounded full. Sure, minidisc is compressed, but still…
    At one point, this person was so adamant that the only conclusion I could think of was that their ears simply preferred the cassette sound, but claiming “outperform” was difficult to accept.

    Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be? Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?

    With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective. So, all AV gear comparisons should only have Tables filled with data (e.g. Freq Resp., S/N ratio, etc.) and should leave listening tests out of the picture. In other words, show me the data!!

    No offense here. Just want to read your thoughts on this.
    Well I can see your point when it comes to the cassette deck argument. In the Data department the cassette deck even the best quality models are still limited by the formats function itself. It is a magnetic media that has heads that read a reel of tape and the measurements even on the best of test equipment show that this format will not compete with the likes of CD's or the Minidisk. When the cassette was in its hay day I could get surprising results using the finest quality of tapes and some of the best made tape decks out there but I do know the limitations of this format and would know better than to make a claim that a cassette could compete with the likes of CD or Minidisks recorded with the same amount of effort. As to people comparing speakers and other gear being close to the origional performance that the artist intended that is a very good point. Unless you were sitting in the studio with the artist while the track was being cut you will not know what the original master souded like. Most people base there hearing off of what live performances they have been at sounded like and I know that those are not always "flat" themselves. Its usually is more of a opinion that a said persons gear is the most accurate in comparison to other gear. The data on speakers are taken from signal tests run on them in special anechoic chambers which allows the speakers to be checked for flat response. That helps but when these speakers are put in the home the response does change with factors like furniture,walls and the overall shape of the room itself. So the specs on equipment is useful to tell you how clean a component operates but there are so many variables when it comes to hooking up this equipment and hearing speakers in rooms that are not acoustically designed that its all more opinion based and unless you own the test equipment in your own home its all based on what you hear yourself.

    Marantz SR5008(HT)
    Nu Force P8 Preamp (2 channel)
    Pass Labs X150.5(2 channel)
    Adcom 545 mk2 power amp(rear channel amp)
    Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S Mains Speakers
    Dayton 8" HO custom sealed subwoofer(2 channel)
    Yamaha NS-c444 center channel
    Emotiva ERD-1 surround speakers
    JBL e250p subwoofer highly modified
    Samsung 46" LED TV
    OPPO BDP-83 blue ray/multi format player
    ps-audio NuWave dac (2 channel)
    Dell I660 music server running fidelizer windows 8 audio optimizer
    PS Audio Quintet power center



  3. #3
    _ Luvin Da Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    _
    Posts
    1,951
    [QUOTE=harley .guy07] ...... Unless you were sitting in the studio with the artist while the track was being cut you will not know what the original master souded like......... [QUOTE]

    This was discussed in a previous thread. My comments in, that thread, mirrored yours exactly.
    Back in my day, we had nine planets.

  4. #4
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    First of all, the CD format still does not equal the sound (forget about snap crackle pop or tape hiss) of an Album or a good Cassette recording of an album due to the square sound wave of digital. Yes some are better than others and the way in which some labels like Maple Shade and Chesky record CDs do sound stellar.

    I have 20 year old cassette recordings of my old albums that have much more emotion and lifelike sound than the same CD. The analog sound wave lets you hear a cymbal crash from start to end, not just half of it and then a quick dropoff.

    99% of the time the artist does not have much control over the engineer that super compresses the CD so it will play loud on the radio.

    When reviewers talk about the sound, think about sitting next to someone playing an acoustic bass. You hear the notes resonate, you hear the artists breath, his fingers sliding up and down the neck. You can tell it is a hollow bodied upright bass. If you don't hear all the same from one pc of gear but do from another, you have your answer as to which pc of gear is truer to life and the tone and timber of an instrument sounds like it would if in the room.

    Now play the same recording on a mass market receiver or HT system and tell me if it sounds the same as playing it thru equipment like you see in my signature.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular harley .guy07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Mo
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi
    First of all, the CD format still does not equal the sound (forget about snap crackle pop or tape hiss) of an Album or a good Cassette recording of an album due to the square sound wave of digital. Yes some are better than others and the way in which some labels like Maple Shade and Chesky record CDs do sound stellar.

    I have 20 year old cassette recordings of my old albums that have much more emotion and lifelike sound than the same CD. The analog sound wave lets you hear a cymbal crash from start to end, not just half of it and then a quick dropoff.

    99% of the time the artist does not have much control over the engineer that super compresses the CD so it will play loud on the radio.

    When reviewers talk about the sound, think about sitting next to someone playing an acoustic bass. You hear the notes resonate, you hear the artists breath, his fingers sliding up and down the neck. You can tell it is a hollow bodied upright bass. If you don't hear all the same from one pc of gear but do from another, you have your answer as to which pc of gear is truer to life and the tone and timber of an instrument sounds like it would if in the room.

    Now play the same recording on a mass market receiver or HT system and tell me if it sounds the same as playing it thru equipment like you see in my signature.
    I do agree that they do compress some CD's to the point that some of the original sounds are lost in transmission. I will say there are also some disks out there that the studio or the artist put the time in and made sure that this did not happen to that level. Every time you take a analog format or original cut and put it to digital you have some loss. It the master is in digital then the losses are in the digital to analog transmission. But the compact disk format as a whole has higher signal to noise levels and with the proper playback equipment such as a good quality CD deck and DAC the losses are at a minimum. the main reason the cassette died is also the same as the vhs video tape. Every time you play the tape there is tape head contact and wear. After numerous playbacks the quality will start to suffer from this.

    I too have made recordings to cassette that amazed people to what can be done with cassettes even seeing the fact that this format losses its ability to have much information below around the 35 to 40 hz range and above 10 to 15 khz. I know people will debate this but from what I have seen this is true. I have even made audio only recordings on VHS tapes using the hifi sound tracking of the HiFI vcrs with awesome results. Most people don't realize how good vhs HiFi tracking can be for audio recording but I have done it.

    Now vinyl does have a definite advantage over cd in the fact that the frequency range is just as good with good equipment. There is no fomat converting to degrade the signal. So I do see the advantage to vinyl. It does have a more natural response and with good enough playback equipment the difference in the smoothness and overall audio information that can be drawn is definitely apparent.

    I will add that out of everyone in this forum that I have seen I have yet to see a person with a equipment list in their signature that still has a tape deck listed. I do see the draw to vinyl. But cassettes to me have more downsides than upsides and thats why my higher end Yamaha tape deck that I used to use is know in a closet stored away.

    Marantz SR5008(HT)
    Nu Force P8 Preamp (2 channel)
    Pass Labs X150.5(2 channel)
    Adcom 545 mk2 power amp(rear channel amp)
    Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S Mains Speakers
    Dayton 8" HO custom sealed subwoofer(2 channel)
    Yamaha NS-c444 center channel
    Emotiva ERD-1 surround speakers
    JBL e250p subwoofer highly modified
    Samsung 46" LED TV
    OPPO BDP-83 blue ray/multi format player
    ps-audio NuWave dac (2 channel)
    Dell I660 music server running fidelizer windows 8 audio optimizer
    PS Audio Quintet power center



  6. #6
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by harley .guy07
    I do agree that they do compress some CD's to the point that some of the original sounds are lost in transmission. I will say there are also some disks out there that the studio or the artist put the time in and made sure that this did not happen to that level. Every time you take a analog format or original cut and put it to digital you have some loss. It the master is in digital then the losses are in the digital to analog transmission. But the compact disk format as a whole has higher signal to noise levels and with the proper playback equipment such as a good quality CD deck and DAC the losses are at a minimum. the main reason the cassette died is also the same as the vhs video tape. Every time you play the tape there is tape head contact and wear. After numerous playbacks the quality will start to suffer from this.

    I too have made recordings to cassette that amazed people to what can be done with cassettes even seeing the fact that this format losses its ability to have much information below around the 35 to 40 hz range and above 10 to 15 khz. I know people will debate this but from what I have seen this is true. I have even made audio only recordings on VHS tapes using the hifi sound tracking of the HiFI vcrs with awesome results. Most people don't realize how good vhs HiFi tracking can be for audio recording but I have done it.

    Now vinyl does have a definite advantage over cd in the fact that the frequency range is just as good with good equipment. There is no fomat converting to degrade the signal. So I do see the advantage to vinyl. It does have a more natural response and with good enough playback equipment the difference in the smoothness and overall audio information that can be drawn is definitely apparent.

    I will add that out of everyone in this forum that I have seen I have yet to see a person with a equipment list in their signature that still has a tape deck listed. I do see the draw to vinyl. But cassettes to me have more downsides than upsides and thats why my higher end Yamaha tape deck that I used to use is know in a closet stored away.
    I whittled some of my misc equipment from my sig but still have a real nice single side Onkyo Integra tape deck which I still use.

    I also still have a Beta machine and I too used to make 4 hour mix tapes before cd compilations. The size of the sound band on the beta was better than the hifi vhs machines. It is not in use anymore due to a loading mechanism failure but still works fine.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular harley .guy07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Mo
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi
    I whittled some of my misc equipment from my sig but still have a real nice single side Onkyo Integra tape deck which I still use.

    I also still have a Beta machine and I too used to make 4 hour mix tapes before cd compilations. The size of the sound band on the beta was better than the hifi vhs machines. It is not in use anymore due to a loading mechanism failure but still works fine.
    I did not use the beta just for the fact that I did not have one and the vcr I already had in my system. Beta was a superior format anyway but vhs won the popularity contest mainly because the vhs tape could record longer per tape and adult material companies chose it as the format they would use. The video and audio buffs really were pushing beta but Sony lost the format war on that one.

    I do still get out my Yamaha from time to time to listen to some vintage cassettes that I have but it mostly stays stored.

    Marantz SR5008(HT)
    Nu Force P8 Preamp (2 channel)
    Pass Labs X150.5(2 channel)
    Adcom 545 mk2 power amp(rear channel amp)
    Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S Mains Speakers
    Dayton 8" HO custom sealed subwoofer(2 channel)
    Yamaha NS-c444 center channel
    Emotiva ERD-1 surround speakers
    JBL e250p subwoofer highly modified
    Samsung 46" LED TV
    OPPO BDP-83 blue ray/multi format player
    ps-audio NuWave dac (2 channel)
    Dell I660 music server running fidelizer windows 8 audio optimizer
    PS Audio Quintet power center



  8. #8
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”?
    When the reference is to the sound of live, unamplified music and that reviewer has regular exposure to said.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be?
    True, but analog distortion is fundamentally different from Redbook CD distortion. Actually, a better reference than vinyl is analog tape, but such is rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective.
    The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

    rw

  9. #9
    Forum Regular harley .guy07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Mo
    Posts
    1,594
    The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

    rw[/QUOTE]

    When I worked selling higher end gear where I live it did seem like people hovered around the THD thing, and no matter what you tell them they still centered around it. I really think It has a lot to do with this measurement being the first thing that is printed after the power rating on any given amplifier. Even though this measurement does not tell of the components sound quality I think people that don't know any better assume that it does show the quality of a component because of they way they print it with the power rating. In a way I think companies do this simply because it is one measurement that is very easy to get a good rating on and they know allot of people who don't better will look closely at it.

    Marantz SR5008(HT)
    Nu Force P8 Preamp (2 channel)
    Pass Labs X150.5(2 channel)
    Adcom 545 mk2 power amp(rear channel amp)
    Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S Mains Speakers
    Dayton 8" HO custom sealed subwoofer(2 channel)
    Yamaha NS-c444 center channel
    Emotiva ERD-1 surround speakers
    JBL e250p subwoofer highly modified
    Samsung 46" LED TV
    OPPO BDP-83 blue ray/multi format player
    ps-audio NuWave dac (2 channel)
    Dell I660 music server running fidelizer windows 8 audio optimizer
    PS Audio Quintet power center



  10. #10
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    When the reference is to the sound of live, unamplified music and that reviewer has regular exposure to said.
    I've never been to a classical music concert, so I can't compare. However, I've been to plenty of rock concerts. Even the best rock concert I've been to couldn't compare to their studio album. With that, I'm assuming that classical and/or jazz concerts sound much like the studio recording...Is this correct?
    Of all the equipment reviews I've read, I wonder how many of those Critics really know what each instrument should sound like?


    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    True, but analog distortion is fundamentally different from Redbook CD distortion. Actually, a better reference than vinyl is analog tape, but such is rare.
    Interesting...Similar to what the other guy was saying on the other site. By the way, he was speaking specifically about a Tandberg machine. If this is true, then either my recording and/or equipment or my hearing is bad. Do you know of any Links that offers more explanation on this? Preferably a technical article or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

    rw
    I tend to agree with you on the THD spec. I'm sure at a high enough numbers, THD would be a factor. I was thinking more about frequency response. Its a specification that tells whether the AV gear provides a neutral/flat reproduction of the music and not add to it.
    Crown? Never heard of it, but I'm assuming the measurements were taken using a standardized method?? Man, there has got to be a way to make this process objective instead of subjective like it seems.

    To All,

    Thank you for all the comments. I'm here to listen to people's opinion with an open mind, learn, and form my own opinion. Gives me lots to research on. Just gotta find research material that is seemingly unbiased.
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

  11. #11
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The problem with the review industry that I am a part of now is that everyone has their own reference - their own reference system and their own belief system as to what a stereo system should be trying to reproduce.

    My belief mirrors this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm on what we need to look for in the best audio reproduction systems. Comparing to live makes little sense to me. I believe one has to start with the piano - then the system that can reproduce the sound of a piano best is the starting point of the discussion - and the be perfectly blunt for me that excludes a whole pile of stereo systems - including breathtakingly pricey ones.

    I think the article has a lot of pluses with few minutes except that it requires a lot of listening which means a lot of time and effort.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular harley .guy07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Mo
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The problem with the review industry that I am a part of now is that everyone has their own reference - their own reference system and their own belief system as to what a stereo system should be trying to reproduce.

    My belief mirrors this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm on what we need to look for in the best audio reproduction systems. Comparing to live makes little sense to me. I believe one has to start with the piano - then the system that can reproduce the sound of a piano best is the starting point of the discussion - and the be perfectly blunt for me that excludes a whole pile of stereo systems - including breathtakingly pricey ones.

    I think the article has a lot of pluses with few minutes except that it requires a lot of listening which means a lot of time and effort.
    I read the article and I am very impressed with what was said. And if every one would read this they might look or more importantly listen to everything differently. I especially like when you said that there are some very high priced systems that would fail the contrast test miserably. I am a musician by hobby and love all sorts of music and my main interest by being into audio is to hear the different kinds of music that I love the way it is supposed to sound. Not some pre conceived notion about how it is supposed to sound. The fact that the article talks about different recordings being different in nature and sometimes the voices that we hear shouldn't always be that warm smooth sound that we think that they should be because possibly the singer does not sound that way. Thats the thing I love about audio being a passion for me is that know matter what you think you know about it every once in a while you get that good "I just learned something" feeling that can make you look at things from a different perspective for the good.

    The reason why I liked when you talked about some very expensive audio systems failing to have the contrast as talked about in the article is that I think allot of audiopiles have that feeling that they have to spend a million bucks for a system to sound good or that the more expensive the component or speaker it is automatically going to be supperior. I myself have a fairly modest system if you look at my signature but I am proud of what I have and while it might not have the real accuracy or contrast as the article said as some. I do believe that if you can work with the stuff that you have and can afford you can get good results if you don't give up or get Bored with it.

    I really think the boredom in itself sometimes drives people to change their components all the time. There is nothing wrong with upgrading and changing things I am not saying that but make sure you know the capabilities of what you already have first.

    Marantz SR5008(HT)
    Nu Force P8 Preamp (2 channel)
    Pass Labs X150.5(2 channel)
    Adcom 545 mk2 power amp(rear channel amp)
    Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S Mains Speakers
    Dayton 8" HO custom sealed subwoofer(2 channel)
    Yamaha NS-c444 center channel
    Emotiva ERD-1 surround speakers
    JBL e250p subwoofer highly modified
    Samsung 46" LED TV
    OPPO BDP-83 blue ray/multi format player
    ps-audio NuWave dac (2 channel)
    Dell I660 music server running fidelizer windows 8 audio optimizer
    PS Audio Quintet power center



  13. #13
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain.
    I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.

    Quote Originally Posted by harley .guy07
    Even though this measurement [THD] does not tell of the components sound quality I think people that don't know any better assume that it does show the quality of a component because of they way they print it with the power rating.-
    If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?

    As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability
    Last edited by Smokey; 08-08-2009 at 12:47 AM.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.


    If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?

    As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability
    THD also comes in several different flavors, making it hard to do comparison.

    What are the key parameters for a:

    A) Turntable

    B) Cassette

    C) CD Player

    D) DVD/Blu Ray

    E) Speakers

    Is there anything to consider for a preamp used in:

    A) 2-Channel

    B) Home Theater
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

  15. #15
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    THD is practically worthless - some of the very best amps have some very high THD and some of the very worst amplifiers have vanishingly low THD. If everyone spent more time actually listening than reading bogus "this is important" measurements on forums and in magazines they'd be far better off.

    I was a Bryston/PMC & B&W fan for a long time - and no one is going to argue with Bryston measurements In the real world a very high THD Single Ended tube amplifier with a mere 8 watts - produced deeper richer bass a 3 dimensional sound - far better transient attack, no noise, better decay and could pound. nothing about the measurements would have had me expecting any of that. The Bryston sounded muddier - making me want to turn it up to make things out clearly, the bass was garbage in comparison - lean brittle lightweight. Massive 120 watt rating and ridiculously low noise rating values - but please people - stop worrying about spec sheets.

    Even Stereophile with all their measurements - when you look and read what the actual REVIEWER'S buy it is very very rarely the stuff that measures well and that accounts for virtually every review magazine in print or on the net. If the measurements actually related to what people heard then the reviewers would never touch a tube amplifier with a ten foot pole. And there is a disproportionate amount of reviewers who own tube amps relative to how many tube amps are sold versus solid state amps!!

  16. #16
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    THD also comes in several different flavors, making it hard to do comparison.
    I don’t follow you by saying that THD comes in different flavor. THD simply how faithful an amp is to the signal it is amplifying. The less THD, the more faithful amp is to the input signal.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    THD is practically worthless - some of the very best amps have some very high THD and some of the very worst amplifiers have vanishingly low THD.
    If an amp have high THD, then does it matter how does it sound?

    Low THD is foundation to agood amp, and if that foundation is not there, nothing else matter. High THD mean more coloration and distortion which is bad even if it does sound good.

    No one is going to argue with Bryston measurements In the real world a very high THD Single Ended tube amplifier with a mere 8 watts - produced deeper richer bass a 3 dimensional sound - far better transient attack, no noise, better decay and could pound.
    8 watts of power tell pretty much the whole story (high distortion). That amp might be all right for analog format like LP which have high noise and low dynamics, but not enough power and too much high distortion to reproduce high dynamic formats like CD/DVD/Blu-ray. Subjectively it might sound good, but objectively you are listening to a distorted sound.

    If the measurements actually related to what people heard then the reviewers would never touch a tube amplifier with a ten foot pole.
    Tubes are product of 40s and 50s era, and are inherently high noise and high distortion component no matter how you look at it. They also have tendency to shift in tolerance and performance due to heat and age.

    The only advantage Tube have over solid state is that tubes can handle high voltage and high current transit better. But when it comes to low noise and low THD distortion, they fail miserably.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    what the artist intended etc

    please realize that ANY transformation of energy is where differences can be most easily amplified. given identical specs, a cassette deck or any other recorder has a big chance of sounding different from one another.

    ferinstance, my nakamichi 700 produced the very best recorded cassette sound of any that i have used overall. my tandberg tcd300 which was at one time considered to be state of the art reproduced depth, imaging, and dynamic range exquisitely. only wow and flutter spoiled its sound.

    my sony 3head with dolby S had similarly low w&f to the nak and was even quieter due to the dS. on a preferential basis, the nak was tops, the sony more than acceptable, and the tandberg rejected due to the flutter even though the sound was wonderful otherwise.

    let me expound on dolby S. there is absolutely NO noise on a dolby S encoded tape unless it resides in the original recording such as the original analog tape hiss which you want to be there if its on the master tape. the time out LP by dave brubeck is a good example of that. the specs demanded for licensure of dolby S by dolby labs is low enough to compete closely if not completely with the digital media. you would be hard pressed to identify flutter on a S equipped deck.

    there are three bands of noise reduction on S and yet it is compatible with B, C, and non dolby settings. even the low frequency noise is prevented. had S been introduced without trying to gouge us by putting it only on very costly decks. AFTER it was too late, they put it on some affordable sonys.

    MOST recordings are quite accurate and when reviewers of equipment make statements about performance, they are usually right if they are any good like robert harley or john atkinson. you can agonize over that and the fact that the reviewers arent using the same speakers the artist of producer or engineer did to master the recording. well, i hate to burst that balloon but some recordings are mastered on JBL 4310s (nearly the same as L100s) which are nowhere NEAR being flat.

    mastering engineers like doug sax know how to compensate for those shortcomings and still come out at the end with a flat recording. those speakers are TOOLS of the trade. its preferable to use good, flat speakers for that task but its not an ideal world.

    test equipment is only useful in the hands experienced in doing so. doing that at home has some value but dont look at it as gospel.

    'lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.' the artist will RARELY want there to be those flaws. most will want the recording to sound like REAL music and that's what i expect from any recording. i just bought a dvd of the group WAR that is positively anemic in the lows and its so bad i cant bring myself to listen and watch it. its a waste of time. i have the original WAR LPs and they dont sound anything like that travesty.

    " Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?" EXACTLY! good vinyl reproduction comes closest to the live experience (other that the master tape). when good reviewers hear the recordings, they expect them to sound as close to the original sound as possible. that's the basis of 'the absolute sound' principle. hopefully the reviewer is equipped with a well installed array of very good stereo equipment.

    "should leave listening tests out of the picture" absolutely NOT! listening is the final arbiter. numbers and spec s are only marks on paper that many times have nothing to do with reality. the best designers of course use measurements but finalize anything with listening.
    ...regards...tr

  18. #18
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Smokey

    Sorry but I can't help you because if you are buying audio components for any other reason than how they sound then why not just shop at Sears? The stuff there will have THD lower than any human on the planet can possibly ever hear and no measurements of any mainstream gear is any better than a $99 Sanyo. CD players all measure below audible hearing, and all cables do as well.

    All wine is made from grapes, and all hamburgers have beef in them so forget Gordon Ramsey and eat at Burger King!

    The audio industry is far more about selling numbers, specs and bafflegab than it has any interest in selling high quality music playback. People are inundated with useless numbers - hey the wow and flutter on a CD player is better than on a Rega P3 so it must be better - except that the Wow and Flutter on new decent decks is lower than anyone can hear!

    Hey this car deck has 52 watts while the other has only 50 - so it's worth the extra money to buy the 52? And it actually works!

    There is nothing really better about Solid State or CD over vinyl and tubes when the best examples out there. Even the best solid state designers in blind conditions choose old beat up tube amplifiers. While it may be true that tubes have higher distortion - the distortion that they do have occurs at higher volume levels, and what is there is far more "natural" allowing the ear to filter it out before it gets to your brain. That's no doubt why it sounds more like real music instruments and why it tends not to sound incredibly fatiguing over a short period of time.

    This two articles were written by one of the top Solid State designers in the entire industry and the founder of Monitor Audio and reviewer of over 700 amplifiers for every top magazine in the industry.

    http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory1.html
    http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

    As taster

    "A little anecdote might illustrate what was happening on a larger scale. At the time I glanced at the first promotional issue of Glass Audio, I was also working on an advanced 200 watt MOSFET amplifier with two friends from Tektronix. This amp represented the pinnacle of the high-end art: fully differential, all-cascode, all-Class-A, zero-TIM, 200V/microsecond, fully regulated, and 120 watts/channel. The same month, I went to the second Oregon Triode Society meeting, and one of the members brought a rusty old Dynaco Stereo 70 that first saw the light of day when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. The sum total of his "tweaks" was to convert the EL34's to triode (cut and tape two wires), and replace two coupling caps. About 2 hours with a soldering iron. We're not talking aerospace engineering here.

    The OTS guy turned it on, and we compared the Stereo 70 to everything in the dealer's showroom. It was plainly superior not only to any transistor amp in there, it wiped out the latest $3000 Audio Research all-tube confection that had received a glowing review in the latest Stereophile. Say hello to humble, and good-bye to price, power, and prestige. (That dealer did not invite the OTS back - gee, wonder why? Buncha troublemakers if you ask me.)

    If you stay in audio long enough, that kind of experience can make you do some deep thinking about cherished assumptions. I set aside the transistor project, stopped laughing at the "tube nuts" and subscribed to Glass Audio (Vol. 1, Issue 0). Two years later, I reviewed the Herb Reichert Silver 300B and the Audio Note Ongaku for Positive Feedback (on the newly-designed Ariels).

    As the speaker designer, I felt I knew my speakers inside and out. Or so I thought. The Ariels were transformed from a pleasant speaker to near-electrostatic realism and "you-are-there" quality. All from changing an amplifier! David Robinson later called this my "Road to Damascus" experience. That ended any idea that amps were pretty much all the same, or if they weren't, mainstream high-end gear was pretty close to perfect. I was surprised to discover that speakers were better than I thought, and that amps had a long long way to go."

    My dealer carries some terrifically expensive and big name Solid State stuff - they've been working there and selling every big name great measuring SS amplifier - and every single one of them owns a tube amp. Why? Because they're the only darn things worth listening to over a long period of time. Higher distortion and less accurate - if that's the argument you want to stick to then that's fine - but what sounds more like real music instruments and singers - is pretty obvious to anyone with a decent set of ears. There are some exceptions but generally they also follow the single ended topology - Sugden for one - but they measure worse too.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178
    [QUOTE=Smokey]I don’t follow you by saying that THD comes in different flavor. THD simply how faithful an amp is to the signal it is amplifying. The less THD, the more faithful amp is to the input signal.

    Well, at least there are a few ways that I've observed:

    1 kHz Freq, 1 Watt, x.xx THD

    1 kHz Freq, @rated power, x.xx THD

    Single channel driven 20~20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

    All Channels Driven 20-20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

    I imagine that if the amplifier were kept as a constant, then all these methods of measurements could potentially produce different THDs. Or I am way off on this?
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

  20. #20
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    I'm with RGA and hifitommy. After 41+ years in this hobby I've come to realize specs mean little if anything when it comes to how something actually sounds. The first gear I bought (1967) was tubes and I was happy. In the early 70's I jumped on the SS wagon and quickly realized my listening pleasure was gone. So I went back to tubes. When I got my BS EE in the middle 70's I thought all wires and cables sounded the same and the improvements in SS gear made it sound as good as tubes. NOT!!!
    By the time I bought my first pair of Magnaplanars in 1976 I was using a Dyna PAS-3 and 2 MK-III's. A couple of years later I got an ARC SP-3. Since then I've had nothing but ARC tube or hybrid pre-amps and tube driven planars or ESL's. Acoustat has been my speaker of choice since around 1983.
    I don't read spec sheets any more. I use my ears and the opinions of people who have ears I respect. Tubes (to my ears) sound more like music than most SS gear. This is not to say all SS gear sounds bad. SS amps that are heavily biased to work in class A for more than 2 or 3 watts or pure class A sound better than other SS amps. The problems with pure Class A SS amps are heat, current draw from the wall and expense. However, I believe they are worth all the drawbacks because they sound better.

    In short it's not necessarily how much distortion, but what kind. Even order distortion which tubes produce can be several orders of magnitude higher than the odd order distortion of SS and still sound better.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  21. #21
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    measurements arent everything

    at least a decade ago i heard wilson watt/puppys driven with jadis defy 7 amplification. they were the best i had ever heard to date. they measured relatively poorly but the sound was exemplary.

    when solid state electronics came out, their MEASURED distortion was noticeably lower but the sound was noticeably worse. perhaps we need to measure the right things.

    when cd came out, people ASSUMED it would be better. eventually when sacd and dvda came along, it was much closer to that. still the best vinyl playback sounds better than the best digital but the gap is miniscule now.

    too bad sony didnt properly support it and use more intelligent marketing.
    ...regards...tr

  22. #22
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178
    A thought and a few questions...

    Our gear, both analog and digital, are all man-made. Designed, Verified, Manufactured, Quality Controlled using science and technology. If we don't know what to measure or are incapable of measuring this so-called "warm sound", then how can the Manufacturers know that they are shipping a good product. Testing every single released audio unit with the "golden ear" seems far fetched and not feasible.

    There was a member that mentioned audio cut-off due to the square wave phenomenon; Can this be quantified?

    Finally, for those of you that are experienced in Jazz and Classical; does the turntable properly replicate the "live" sound? If not, what platform does?

    Again, my objective is to draw from those with more expertise than myself. Thanks for all the invaluable information.
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

  23. #23
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    I've never been to a classical music concert, so I can't compare.
    Never? You're missing out on a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    However, I've been to plenty of rock concerts. Even the best rock concert I've been to couldn't compare to their studio album.
    I listen to plenty of popular music, but most *live* venues sound positively horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    With that, I'm assuming that classical and/or jazz concerts sound much like the studio recording...Is this correct?
    Only the best. The majority still rely too heavily upon the multi-tracking method that destroys natural depth.


    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    Of all the equipment reviews I've read, I wonder how many of those Critics really know what each instrument should sound like?
    Read those who make direct comparisons to live unamplified music.


    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    If this is true, then either my recording and/or equipment or my hearing is bad. Do you know of any Links that offers more explanation on this?
    It's not a simple question to answer or can any article do the same. It is all about experience and exposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    I was thinking more about frequency response. Its a specification that tells whether the AV gear provides a neutral/flat reproduction of the music and not add to it.
    Once again, the measurements are largely useless because they are done with each component separately. The combined result can be very different. Speakers cause many amplifiers to react differently because of their load characteristics. Some amps are able to drive difficult loads and change their character less.

    Quote Originally Posted by frahengeo
    Man, there has got to be a way to make this process objective instead of subjective like it seems.
    After nearly forty years in the hobby, I sure haven't found a way.

    rw

  24. #24
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.
    Sure there is more to it, but it is easy to improve the specsmanship using NFB at the direct cost of fidelity when the criteria is dynamic music, not test tones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?
    It frequently shows utter ineptitude on the part of the engineer when they rely too heavily on the feedback crutch. When you have a design using NO feedback that measures low distortion, that is impressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability
    And my experience is that it offers zero correlation with the musical truth. To each his own.

    rw

  25. #25
    Forum Regular frahengeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    178
    [QUOTE=E-Stat]Never? You're missing out on a lot.

    So it seems. I will start with classical recordings for now and see if it peaks my interest. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this strategy since I will be using my "digital" equipment.


    Once again, the measurements are largely useless because they are done with each component separately. The combined result can be very different. Speakers cause many amplifiers to react differently because of their load characteristics. Some amps are able to drive difficult loads and change their character less.

    I'm not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting that switching a component being compared and keeping everything else the same does not offer an apples to apples comparison. That there is additional "synergy" between components that could potentially enhance/improve sound reproduction? Well, that leaves the Audiophile with an endless number of combination that will never be realized.
    It's a disease, really.
    -----------------------------------
    Sony
    CDP-X77ES, CDP-X55ES, TA-N90ES, TA-E90ES, 333ESXII
    Denon
    AVP-A1HDCI, POA-A1HDCI, DVD-5910CI, DVD-2500BTCI
    Oppo
    BDP-83
    Sennheiser
    HD800
    Definitive Technology
    BP2000TL, C/L/R 3000, BPX, BP1X
    Pioneer
    Pro-151FD

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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