|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.64.194.128
In Reply to: RE: But posted by A.Wayne on December 07, 2014 at 12:44:32
Cab,
Did you level match when comparing , what did you compare the Lamm to on the scinnies ? Best to measure listening voltage , this would really give us something to use along with your opinion , seeing we are not there to hear for ourselves..
Regards ...
Follow Ups:
In these cases I did not level match. However, if you read my old reviews on preamps I was level matching to within 0.5db.
Do YOU do everything you are recommending? I seriously doubt it. I think hypocrisy would be the key word here. We were listening for pleasure not trying to dissect the amp.
I really don't care if you use my opinion or not...you don't seem to get that. I KNOW how to make measurements (see my review on the Piega C2 ltd. as an example in Positive Feedback). I know how to measure the SPL level I listen at and I know how that translates to power.
So, when I tell you we were rarely above 30watts I know what I am talking about.
In the end, all you can do is listen for yourself. I merely stated I will take it off MY list of desirable amps...YMMV.
Cab ,Im not saying you are Full , i don't have to , you're doing a good job of it, unfortunately for you i have experience working with scinnies , ribbons in general and loudspeakers on a whole ( past design work ) , here's Audio Mag take on the scinnies, mirrors mine..
"However, this gorgeous sound comes at a price. Presented with the Scintilla's 1-ohm load, distinctly outside manufacturers' ratings, a number of fine amps took on unpredictable sonic characteristics. Greenhill's reference Levinson ML-9 stereo amplifier which usually plays with a neutral midrange and a big, dynamic bass-became sweeter, tube-like, and mellow (not unwelcome, by the way!) until its current limiting cut in (at clipping) with a spray of static. The dual-mono Tandberg 3009As, which Greenhill had found to be fast, detailed amps with etched highs, took on a bass emphasis and acquired a stronger midrange presence. Both amps can deliver more than 400 watts into 4 ohms, and Tandberg claims more than 800 watts output at 1 ohm. But neither could drive the Scintillas on peaks to more than 88 dB (at 1 meter) in Kachalsky's normally upholstered living room.
The speakers were then reconfigured to a 4-ohm load. Seven color-coded wires were repositioned on the rear of the speaker terminals and on a separate terminal strip within the enclosure. This 30-minute procedure must be done carefully for each speaker, since the hardware can easily slip down into the nylon sock that covers the rear of the enclosure. It also helps to have good color vision (both authors are colorblind, so we acknowledge the help of Mrs. Kachalsky) to place the purple, green, and gray wires on the correct terminals. At 4 ohms, the authors heard no sonic aberrations in the amplifiers, but the Scintillas lacked the ultimate naturalness, air, openness, and midrange clarity heard with the 1ohm configuration. You won't realize this unless you have heard them driven at the lower impedance setting.
We preferred the very expensive Krell mono KMA-100 ($4,900/pair) and 200watt KMA-200 ($7,500/pair) amplifiers for driving the Scintillas. We used them in a bi-amplified fashion (a pair of KMA-100s for midrange and tweeter, a pair of KMA-200s for the woofers), which produced the widest dynamic range. At 1 ohm, the KMA-100 is claimed to deliver 800 watts per channel and the KMA-200 puts out 1,600 watts per channel. A single pair of Krells were "bi-wired" (two speaker cables connected to each amplifier output terminal) to each Scintilla's double set of speaker posts: SPL measurements showed Scintilla output peaks of 94 dB (KMA-100s) and 98 dB (KMA-200s) at audible clipping. No change in tonal character or sudden presence effects were heard at 1 ohm-just sweet, open, detailed sound. Dan D'Agostino, the Krells' designer, uses the Apogees as a test load. The Class� Audio DR-3 amp also performs beautifully at the low-impedance setting."
-Audio 1985
So i will iterate , the Lamm is not the amp for that job there is no way to listen to scinnies or any low sensitivity low -z ribbon with less than 400-800 watts /ch, to do so will net a lame soft sound , devoid of dynamics and realism of size. To do with 30 watts would mean a listening level din of 72- 74db with dynamic peaks not exceeding 10db, far below the levels necessary for realism of sound ..Since you did not measure nor able to say more than this amp is off "my list" i would have to assume you have an agenda , sadly audio today is cluttered with nothing more than opinionated rags and "reviewers "
Regards
Edits: 12/08/14 12/08/14
"M1.2's output varies with output power with the Hi-Z bias setting into loads varying from 2 to 16 ohms. The amplifier comfortably exceeds its rated output power, giving out 180W into 8 ohms (22.6dBW), 305W into 4 ohms (21.8dBW), and 490W into 2 ohms (20.9dBW), all at 1% THD."
Now, on what planet is that an incapable amplifier? The M1.1 gives similiar numbers but was not tested in the same way as the M1.2 (TJN only tested the low impedance on the low impedance settings). Therefore, I give you the M1.2 numbers.
"For comparison, fig.5 shows what happens with Lo-Z output-stage biasing: the maximum output power is almost halved, but the signal benefits from significantly lower distortion into low impedances. "
Yes, power is halved but the amount of Class A into the lower loads is increased. STill it delivers over 200 watts into 2 ohms. What isn't tested is power at 1 ohm but LAMM itself states that in the LowZ mode it will produce 400watts into 1 ohm...more than enough to give Scintillas a kick. Given that a Krell KMA 100 can generate 94db and also makes around 400 watts into 1 ohm I would says that the LAMM can do similar.
Regardless, the sound from the Thiels, a MUCH easier drive than Scintillas and much higher sensitivity also did not sound as good as expected...when I said not more than 30 watts I was referring to Thiels, not Scintillas...I know you like to forget but I will remind you one last time I am talking about FOUR different loudspeakers...not just Scintillas.
"My B-weighted estimate on its tweeter axis, assessed with DRA Labs' MLSSA system, was slightly above that figure, at 90.7dB(B)/2.83V/m."
So they are 90db/3 ohm speakers:
Let's say it takes 2.5 watts to make 90db from ONE speaker...two = 93db. Drop in room of about the same gives 90db at the listening position for 2.5 watts:
90db = 2.5 watts
93db = 5 watts
96db = 10 watts
99db = 20 watts
102db = 40 watts
Now, I can tell you for certain that we were not listening with peaks above 99db...this is too loud for my comfort. Average levels were in the low to mid 80s with peaks in the mid-90s, therefore, I can state that we were almost certainly using less than 30 watts.
So, to reiterate, there is plenty of Juice from the LAMMS and stereophile's measurements bear that out for all kinds of speakers...IMO it just doesn't sound as good as one would hope for that kind of money. If you think it does then more power to you.
"i would have to assume you have an agenda "
Based on what deduction have your reached this odd conclusion?? That I didn't like the sound of the amp? Is that now grounds for "agendas"?? Seriously??
In case you haven't noticed, rags are not big on negative comments like I have given...so your point is simply wrong.
Mr Morricab wrote:"B-weighted estimate on its tweeter axis, assessed with DRA Labs' MLSSA system, was slightly above that figure, at 90.7dB(B)/2.83V/m."
So they are 90db/3 ohm speakers:
Let's say it takes 2.5 watts to make 90db from ONE speaker...two = 93db. Drop in room of about the same gives 90db at the listening position for 2.5 watts:
90db = 2.5 watts
93db = 5 watts
96db = 10 watts
99db = 20 watts
102db = 40 watts"
Mr Cab are you sure you are a scientist or an Attorney ..? you only lose 3 DB at 3-4 M listening distance? you should check out the 3.7's impedance phase angles too and to answer your other point, you were the one who brought up scinnies, by stating this was a high current amp bought for scinnies.
Regards
Edits: 12/09/14 12/09/14 12/09/14
Cab,
You are entitled to your own opinion , not your own science...
"The dual-mono Tandberg 3009As, which Greenhill had found to be fast, detailed amps with etched highs, took on a bass emphasis and acquired a stronger midrange presence. Both amps can deliver more than 400 watts into 4 ohms, and Tandberg claims more than 800 watts output at 1 ohm. But neither could drive the Scintillas on peaks to more than 88 dB (at 1 meter) in Kachalsky's normally upholstered living room."
MEASURED:
So 800 watts peak at 1 ohm netted 88db (measured @1M) and you estimate what ? As to your other conjecture of the where lamm 1.1 would put out 400 + watts at 1 ohm is also absurd, I had gone to the trouble to post up it's thd vs power output and at anything above 100 watts it's distortion takes off , same for 8,4,2. I'm sorry Cab, you may not be as scientific as you project, Give us your opinion, I'm usually in agreement, but until you improve on your methodology, stay away from such absurd statements as fact.
My take ? if you have ribbons or hard to drive heavy current demanding speakers, stay away from Lamm 1.1 . Acceptable to me after viewing the 1.1 test results ...
Regards..
And I have seen much higher outputs mentioned in other reviews for more modest 1 ohm outputs. Seriously, something is off with the numbers you have presented. 88db with 800watts??? Surely you're joking Mr. A.Wayne.
Either their Scintillas were broken or the Tandberg amps make nowhere near the claimed 800 watts into 1 ohm...wouldn't be the first time someone lied about their output.
800 watts and 88db implies sensitivity below 70db and that is simply not the facts.
79 = 1 watt (1 ohm)
82 = 2 watts
85 = 4 watts
88 = 8 watts
so 8 watts not 800 watts!
Mr Morricab,
Read again , slowly, that was an actually test done by a mag reviewer , not some opinionated peristalsis from a golden Ear wanton... :)
Sensitivity below 74 db is believable , you should measure Cab and stop trying to bluff your way thru everything. I'm solidly of the opinion, you were never really exposed to SOTA level hi-fi based on your Comments or do you think everyone powering these things with mega watts were just insane , including Jason Bloom.
8 watts .. LOL , 2,83v on a scinnie is 8 watts, go measure ....
Regards
In 1ohm mode, the conventionally rated voltage sensitivity (referred to 2.83V input, an 8ohm 'watt') will increase by 6dB, bringing the apparent in-room sensitivity to 85dB/W. Given sufficient current, this would explain why the Krells could attain such high sound levels with the Scintillas. In a medium-sized (80m3) room, peak levels of 103-105dBA will be possible from a stereo pair, this a decently high level if not quite of disco intensity. Driven to this level, they could be clearly heard all over the house, even with the intervening doors closed.
This is from Martin Colloms in Hifi News in 1985.
Krell KSA-100 is the obvious choice, capable of driving the Scintilla to majestic levels in 1 ohm mode. In truth, one would need to go no further.
Also from the same review. Now the KSA100 makes 800 watts into 1 ohm or about double what the Lamms can do. That is only 3db less so it means that the Lamms can do around 100db before clipping.
Clearly the Tandbergs were not up to what they claimed.
I would also like to address your theoretical 3 db ,less say for discussion sakes you are running around 20 watts for your avg din of 84 db from listening position, a dynamic peak of 15 db will require 640 watts, clearly exceeding the 400 @3%thd clipping out of your Lamm 1.1 . Less say your super scinnies only need 10 watts to achieve 84db from your listening position, then you will still require 320 watts to reproduce the same dynamic peak , at which time the Lamm is producing above 2% thd and clipping, hence my point.
So less say you like to listen at even lower levels and size and drop your avg din to 81 db max then you will require 160 watts of power to reproduced sustained peak of 15 db , at which time your lamm would be putting out 170 watts at approx 1% thd @ 1 ohm( clipping ). Hence my point , you dislike the sound of the lamm over driven ..
Note: that anything above 100 watts is after the knee and thd is a straight line up ..SO ,
You are dynamic limited with this amplfier , IMO, it's best suited for 4 ohm and above speakers in the 88db/w/m and above range..
Regards,
Edits: 12/17/14
" The M1.1's discrete clipping powers (at 1% THD+N) were 140W into 8 ohms (21.5dBW) (115V line); 138W into 4 ohms (18.4dBW) (114V line); and 230W into 2 ohms (17.6dBW) (115V line). "
The Lamm puts out 230 watts into 2 ohms at 1% and around 400 into 1 ohm.
That is in the low impedance mode.
The M1.2 was more thoroughly tested in the high impedance mode and records the following:
" Fig.4 shows how the THD+noise percentage present in the M1.2's output varies with output power with the Hi-Z bias setting into loads varying from 2 to 16 ohms. The amplifier comfortably exceeds its rated output power, giving out 180W into 8 ohms (22.6dBW), 305W into 4 ohms (21.8dBW), and 490W into 2 ohms (20.9dBW), all at 1% THD. "
So, in the high Z setting it makes nearly 500 watts into 2 ohms and half that at the low Z mode (so about the same as the M1.1) and doubles again into 1 ohm.
That is a LOT more power than you are claiming. Not 5%, not 3% but 1% THD.
"The M1.2 Reference is conservatively rated to deliver 110 Watts into 8 and 4 Ohms in pure class A operation (high and low impedance settings, respectively); 220 Watts into 2 Ohms, and 400 Watts into 1 Ohm (low impedance setting), continuous."
Since LAMMs specs were accurate at 4 and 2 ohms, I don't doubt that they are correct about their 1 ohm output (in lowZ mode). One may also safely assume that LAMM rates these at 1% THD...just like Stereophile confirms.
So, your numbers are simply out to lunch.
Speaking of lunch , I will place the test results in your lunch box , who knows .........
WHatever floats your boat A.Wayne.
BTW you never did address the fact that I reached my conclusions about the Lamms not on the Scintillas but on the Thiel CS3.7...a 90+db speaker with a minimum of 2 ohms impedance. Surely you won't tell me that the Lamms are inadequate to drive this speaker too? You look pretty silly already with your inability to read stereophile's test report on the Lamms. The fact that the same issues popped up not on one, not on two but on three different speaker systems is a fact that you have conveniently ignored in your zeal to prove me wrong about the Lamms being able to drive Scintillas just fine (a failed attempt at that).
You look silly without my input Morri, you're pretty good :) and i only addressed your high current low - z rating for the Lamm 1.1 on scinnies , thats what mostly got me started in the discussion , i guess the Thiel's are now your new strawman argument ....
Take a look at the thiels impedance phase, see anything .... ?
Regards..
Read the original post...I make it clear that I am taking them off my list because of how they sounded AFTER hearing them on Thiel CS3.7s...so much for your reading comprehension.
You do know how to entertain Morri, here's hoping you finally get to hear a good system in 2015, not good having the same bad experience every year.
So get well soon and all the best ....
Regards,
Edits: 12/20/14 12/20/14
Fortunately I get to hear a good one nearly every evening...mine.
Morri, best to focus on you Class-D shoot out , maybe toobs will be off your list next ......
Edits: 12/21/14
Mr Cab,Again more conjecture, look at the distortion vs power for the Lamms, the Lamms do 100 watts into 2 ohm before distortion (look at the Knee @ 100watts , where distortion takes off) takes off into clipping, it will be at best the same into 1 ohm. 100 watt Cabbie , your theoretical 400 watts would be approx 3% THD @ 1 ohm. Anyway you should measure, very easy , use any test cd and a meter or a scope and measure 2.83 volt out of the lamm's, then measure with a Db meter at listening position , see , easy !
Look at that ...
Cabbie, you are running the lamm into clipping and you hate how it sounds , not like your toooby stuff where the distortion is Noooice when that happens.... :)100 watts on a scinnie is ok for very moderate none dynamic listening, no one is running scinnies with 100 watts/ch , well no one serious about hi-fi reproduction, so thanks for the info , Lamm 1.1 is bad at below 4 ohms, the measurements tell me that and i concur with you .
Regards..
Edits: 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14
Mr Morricab,
Read again , slowly, that was an actually test done by a mag reviewer , not some opinionated peristalsis from a golden Ear wanton... :)
Sensitivity below 74 db is believable , you should measure Cab and stop trying to bluff your way thru everything. I'm solidly of the opinion, you were never really exposed to SOTA level hi-fi based on your Comments or do you think everyone powering these things with mega watts were just insane , including Jason Bloom.
8 watts .. LOL , 2,82v on a scinnie is 8 watts, go measure ....
Regards
of pontificating which amps are "good" and which aren't. Always ready to dispense your dogma concerning negative feedback, class d, ad nauseam. The consistency with which you jump in with your opinions, which are usually put forth with an air of absolute truth, belies your "I really don't care if you use my opinion or not". Seems you care quite a bit; why else keep a "list"? I wonder how large the readership is?
"In the end, all you can do is listen for yourself" is the most accurate thing I have seen you post to date. Perhaps you might take your own words to heart in the future...
try it! you know you want to!
Your views are always appreciated and are among the first I look for here.
Keep it up!
Its so funny when people like you throw around words like "dogma" and don't even really understand what that means. Dogma is defined as the following:
"1.An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it. "
or
"2.A doctrine (or set of doctrines) relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth authoritatively by a religious organization or leader. "
Now assuming you meant number 1, I would say that while I think I have done my research and based on my listening obsreavations have found correlation with different types of amp designs. These designs have been found to generate distortion in such a way that a number of studies would say that most listeners would prefer over the standard design orthodoxy. So, there is evidence to support my point of view and it is both observational and scietifically generated evidence.
Take papers by Cheever, Geddes and others as a basis for figuring out what kind of distortion sound better than others (there is no "good" distortion just more or less audible) and some attempts to numerically catagorize it (Shorter, Geddes, Cheever and others) and I have indeed come up with a list based on available measurements and amps that I have heard first hand. Keith Howard also found interesting things when he added distortion mathematically to music. He found undistorted sounded best; however, he found that the patterns that people like Jean Hiraga found the most pleasing were the least damaging to the recording. So, while no distortion is benign there is less damaging and more damaging.
Declaring which amps I have found to sound good and those I have not is not pontification, nor is it dogma...it is observational science (the foundation of all science is observation and then research into that observation). I am a scientist, more specifically, I am an analytical scientist...I make measurements and devise testing schemes for a living. Starting many years ago, I started listening to as many amps and preamps as possible and started to realise that I was leaning in a particular direction because of the sound I heard and how it compared to my experiences with live, unamplified music. I started to form a hypothesis about what constitutes good sound and started then to find research that has been done to support that hypothesis. I have found a number of papers that support what I am hearing but it is far from perfect science. That much is clear.
For amps I haven't heard I think at this point I can tell from the data if they COULD be interesting or not. Until I hear them for real it is not a fact only a possibility. The LAMMS on paper should be a possibilty but in practice I found that something bothered me about the sound.
In the end, I am sharing my findings, which you are free to accept or refuse but unlike most people I have a clear methodology for finding really good gear. If you think that is dogma then you are mistaken in your use of the word.
If you think my statement that I find Class D to not be good sounding as being dogmatic, well you are wrong again because I have owned three different types of Class D amps and tried many many others. I don't give up after the first listen. It is based on the OBSERVATION that all of the Class D amps I have heard don't deliver really good sound. Not at home, not in shops, not at shows, not at friend's...not!
We had the Devialet (original) in-house (widely considered to be the best Class D) and it was soundly beaten by other amps of more conventional design.
I have heard more Class AB SS amps than I can possibly remember, including flavors of the year, Halcro, Soulution, darTZeel, Vitus (not bad actually), Pass etc. etc. on many many different speaker systems... they have problems like one would expect if you read Cheever and others. Sonically they are missing realism.
I am always open to the POSSIBILITY that one of these Class D or Class AB with a lot of negative feedback will be the ONE, otherwise I wouldn't bother to even try them out anymore...that would be dogmatic...like DISBELIEVER and his views about tubes on this forum. I try them, they fail based on my observations. Based on this repretitiveness of experience my hypothesis mostly holds true. I have yet to hear a pure SS amp that I could live with for the long term. The closest was the Edge NL reference monoblocks but I didn't try to live with them so I don't know how they would fare.
When I say, "I don't care", I really mean it because I don't need your validation for me to decide if I am heading in the right direction or not...my ears and my scientific knowledge tell me that I am. I like to share what I find and I like to debate those who don't agree with me but usually they are like you who haven't a clue and can't offer anything meaningful in way of counter argument. I also don't care about my "readership", maybe I have some maybe not. People do drop me emails from time to time...
Obviously everyone has to listen for themselves...I won't spend your money for you but I am happy to guide those who I am quite sure want a better sound than they have. It is a never ending learning process for me as well but I am largely self-directed (although I have had my mentors along the way as well.) I ONLY decide to buy something based on what I have heard and not on other's opinions...so I take my own words to heart everytime. Only a very few items I have bought without hearing first stayed in my system for long.
what exactly "better sound" is and why do you think you are qualified to determine for others exactly what that is? What's next? Are you going to tell me what food I should like? Which beer is "best"?This is the issue I have with your ilk- you "know" what is "best" because you have "heard" it. The simple fact that there are many kinds of amp topologies, each with their proponents and detractors, should tell you something- that there is no "best". There is only personal preference. Yours is but one opinion in a sea of opinions. What is true for you is not true for everyone...So you have heard a boatload of amps. Your experience tells me nothing about them but rather everything about your subjective preferences.
In truth, your "observations" mean -0- when it comes to what others may like or dislike. You have made blanket statements here repeatedly about the "evils" of negative feedback, class d, etc. You have no evidence to support this, i.e., "dogma"- the simple fact is, there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who think you are full of it and their preference and ownership of amps that use large amounts of it are both evidence and proof to the contrary. Again, what is true for you is not true for everyone- all you offer up are subjective opinions which you like to tout as some universal truth based on "science". I don't need to read a paper on TIM or NF to know whether or not I like the sound of an audio system.
If you want to debate the objective performance, great. That is were science, fact, and logic apply. There is nothing scientifically significant in your observations; science, fact, logic, have nothing to do with personal preference; anyone that is married can verify that... You like to draw these grand conclusions and generalizations based on amp topologies and oversimplifications; you have heard THREE (3) class d amps and have made your pronouncement. Never mind there must be at least 20 or more discreet class d amp platforms on the market and an infinite number of system combinations possible- yes, some amps perform differently depending on the system they are used in...there is no universal correlation-see above.You state: "I like to debate those who don't agree with me but usually they are like you who haven't a clue and can't offer anything meaningful in way of counter argument"...You seem to have "opinion" and "argument" confused: an opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's own personal feelings. And this is ALL opinion...I think I am the best judge of my own tastes- you are the one without a clue in that regard. I wouldn't presume to debate the validity of your preferences with you. Your appeal to authority ("I have heard so many SS amps I lost count", etc. therefore I am an expert) is spurious.
And yes, def. 2 fits as well: you do seem to come across like a religious zealot or "authority", who has exclusive access to the one and only holy path to "better sound"...
I could care less what path you are on, much less if you are heading in the right direction, or not. It is nice to know that you only buy based on what you hear, not on other's opinions, yet one can't help but wonder why you would then presume to think that your opinions would mean more to others than what they hear...
Perhaps others are taken in by your "science" and impressed by the long list of amps you have heard. Maybe they also make purchasing decisions based on internet "expert"'s "truths". Too bad for them. I would like to hope that most have more common sense than to take someone else's word on what will sound "good" to them in their system.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 12/08/14 12/08/14 12/08/14 12/08/14
"what exactly "better sound" is and why do you think you are qualified to determine for others exactly what that is? What's next? Are you going to tell me what food I should like? Which beer is "best"? "
It's called psychoacoustics and in case you didn't know there are ways to find out what sounds most people like the best.
I haven't just heard it, I have been able to correlate it to a greater or lesser degree, with particular amplifier designs. It just so happens that these designs produce particular distortion patterns that are low in perceptible distortion not in absolute distortion. What I am telling you from my experience is that I find that there are scientific explaantions as to why some amps would be preferrable to others for the majority of listeners.
Objective performance based on an oscilloscope or FFT generator is meaningless in isolation. As an analytical scientist one is always trying to relate a measurement feature BACK to a real world phenomenon. This correlation is where the meaning lies not in the raw numbers. The problem is that engineers have for decades pursued numbers as the ends and not as the means to achieving good sound. They have misunderstood the purpose of measurements in their drive to achieve better numbers.
This was realized a long time ago by D.E.L. Shorter at the BBC and Norman Crowhurst who wrote about the problems that negative feedback causes in signal generation back in the 1950s. Otala later saw a problem with negative feedback loops and speaker interaction. I am not coming at this out of the fantasy blue sky. Other rather smart men laid the groundwork for this kind of thinking. Cheever put it together pretty nicely in his Master's Thesis.
The disconnect between what is heard and what is measured has also caused JA at Stereophile much consternation. When AD likes something a lot that measures rather poorly and MF gets caught that way too sometimes it makes JA wonder what is it that is going on. Geddes explored this in 2 AES papers and found that his new metric fit much better than THD + noise measurements, which if anything had a slight NEGATIVE correlation with sound quality!
"In truth, your "observations" mean -0- when it comes to what others may like or dislike. You have made blanket statements here repeatedly about the "evils" of negative feedback, class d, etc. You have no evidence to support this, i.e., "dogma"- the simple fact is, there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who think you are full of it and their preference and ownership of amps that use large amounts of it are both evidence and proof to the contrary"
I have given reference to evidence about these other technologies it is up to you to read and comprehend. Ownership of those other products is often based on other factors than sound quality...that is often the nature of human psychology.
I call it objective/subjective because while, yes it comes down to individual perception there are clear rules that govern what most of us perceive as "good sound" and they are related to how our ear/brain has evolved to understand soundwaves and harmonic patterns in nature. Screw with what nature produces and you run a high risk of an unpleasant sounding result. If you read Cheever, you will notice that it is also sound pressure level dependent and therefore the sensitivity and impedance of the speaker and how the amp reacts to that also matters.
This is objective, observational science and theory synthesized from studies to link the two. I may not have conducted these studies but I am trained and qualified to take their findings and extrapolate what it means with various types of amplifiers.
" you have heard THREE (3) class d amps and have made your pronouncement"
You have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem. I said I OWNED 3 different Class D amps and have heard at length about a dozen others.
"Never mind there must be at least 20 or more discreet class d amp platforms"
Heard most of them, including the new N-core from Putseys. I have also heard at length exotica like the Sharp SX-200 and Tact Millenium (and their cheaper models too) as well as Lyngdorf, numerous B&O modules (Jeff Rowland, Bel Canto etc.), T-amps, Nuforce, Devialet, Hypex UcD (several DIY), N-core (mola mola), Zap pulse (my own), PS Audio (my own), other Sharp (my own) etc..
"I don't need to read a paper on TIM or NF to know whether or not I like the sound of an audio system."
And that is the problem. You, unlike me don't care WHY you prefer something. I go looking for the reason I like what I like and continually lean towards certain gear and away from other gear. As a scientist I am trained to investigate the root cause of an observation...you clearly are not trained to do this.
"Your appeal to authority ("I have heard so many SS amps I lost count", etc. therefore I am an expert) is spurious.
"
THis is NOT an appeal to authority. If I had said, "AD thinks all SS amps are crap so I they are crap" then THAT would be an appeal to authority (assuming we both agree AD is an authority on audio). I am giving my firsthand observation, something quite different.
"You seem to have "opinion" and "argument" confused: an opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's own personal feelings."
As I have said many times in the past (you obviously read only what you want to read and not the whole post), I have an observation and have found evidence to support what I am hearing (see comments above about research in psychoacoustics and distortion perception) and based on this information have synthesized a hypothesis about what I think should sound good and what I think would not sound good. I make arguments using research that some kinds of amps will be inherently less good sounding based on their designs and the subsequent distortions that those designs invariably produce.
"And yes, def. 2 fits as well: you do seem to come across like a religious zealot or "authority", who has exclusive access to the one and only holy path to "better sound"..."
No, as I have pointed out that I have used scientific observation along with documented research in the field of psychoacoustics...is it possible it is wrong? Probably not completely but I am sure it can be further tuned and improved. I have never appealed to any authority other than the research results from various sources but I let the data there speak.
"to think that your opinions would mean more to others than what they hear..."
People seem to like my advice once they try it...I have had numerous adopter of my system concepts, particularly electronics. Since that is a fact (I would be blind not to notice friends who copy my systems) then I have to assume I am offering some value from my advice. They take my word only as far as giving something a try...if it fits then they try to buy it if not...well then I guess what they hear differs from me.
"Perhaps others are taken in by your "science" "
I am sure you have no idea what is involved in practicing science so I will leave your comment as such. I have over 20 years as a practicing analytical scientist so I think I know a thing or two about scientific method and falsifiability of hypotheses.
Again, your science is flawed. Your "science" as to which topology is "best" may be accurate for you, and undoubtedly some others will agree, but not for all, probably not even for most. Each amp topology has its rabid supporters who will tell you their amp is the "best". Where a subjective factor is involved, there is no singular solution. If there was, there wouldn't be the plethora of products in the market. People can't even agree on whether or not cables, fuses, etc. have an effect, never mind which are "best". How many amps are on the market? 500? How many topologies and variations? Digital (NOS? Tube output? Which chip?)or vinyl? Surely if there was a "best", there wouldn't be as many options available nor would this question continue to be discussed. The simple reality is there is no consensus "best", only different. It is these differences in perception and taste that drive not only the audio market, but nearly every other consumer market.You consistently generalize and oversimplify: there is no one class a or class d topology but many. Lumping them all together is like saying a Honda is faster than a Chevy.
Amps make no sound. They transfer a signal with gain. Systems make sound. In light of the fact that an amp and its subsequent performance is dependent and subject to the system in which it is inserted, again, your theory fails.Personal preference is an individual choice with no right answer. Your pseudoscience falls short because unlike people's preferences, it is attempting to use logic and reason to analyze something that does not subscribe to the rules of logic and reason.
Even if MOST people agreed with your preferences, it does nothing to prove they are "right". Personal preferences are not subject to a democratic rule of the majority. Again, there is no right and wrong. Only different.
Best of luck with your delusion.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 12/09/14 12/09/14 12/09/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: