|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.189.217.4
In Reply to: RE: Favorite output transformers? posted by cpotl on October 21, 2014 at 03:44:37
What are you listening to in a concert hall Chris? Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance.
Edits: 10/21/14 10/21/14Follow Ups:
"What are you listening to in a concert hall Chris? Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance."
But that is my point. The recording microphones in the concert hall will already have picked up not only the direct sound, but also the reflected sounds, and furthermore they are characteristic of the specific concert hall. So you will already be hearing direct and reflected sounds when you listen to the recording on headphones. If you then add in further reflected sounds created within your own listening room when you listen on loudspeakers, then it seems like that would be "painting the lily." And what is more, these additional reflected sounds would be characteristic of your listening room, not of the original venue, and thus would seem to represent a departure from greater realism, rather than an improvement.
Chris
The microphone will never pick up what your ears would have heard had your head been where the mic was. You might as well just go for what sounds good to you because an exact reproduction just isn't going to happen no matter what numbers you get testing your amp.
"The microphone will never pick up what your ears would have heard had your head been where the mic was. You might as well just go for what sounds good to you because an exact reproduction just isn't going to happen no matter what numbers you get testing your amp."
I don't see why the microphone would be likely to selectively exclude the reflected sounds in the concert hall, in contrast to the direct sounds. So as a "best attempt" at reproducing what you would have heard had your head been where the microphone was, I would have thought that trying to reproduce as accurately as possible what was recorded off the microphone would be the best bet.
But I totally agree, that if accurate reproduction is not the goal, and instead one wants to produce a sound that is pleasing to the ear, then that is perfectly fine too. Perhaps I had misinterpreted what you meant when you said
"Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance."
I had assumed you meant you were wanting to capture the original reflected sound in the concert hall, in order to recreate for your ears an experience that was as close as possible to the original performance. I was just making the point that the nearest you will get to experiencing the original reflections is to play as faithful a reproduction as possible of what comes recorded on the CD, without adding other colourations from the listening apparatus.
But as has been said, if one instead sets the goal of achieving a pleasing sound, albeit maybe less faithful to the original, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Chris
What you will get doing that is a faithful reproduction of what the recording engineer captured; influenced by the setting he used on the recording equipment and the equipment itself. I just take issue with folks thinking that if the numbers for the amp are right on that's all there is to it.
the measurements tell the truth.
here is my undestanding and I'm sure some people here can explain it much better.
the reason minimum THD% is thrown out in general is because people weren't looking at the spectrum and which harmonics dominated the THD measurement.
if you see a reduction in distortion while keeping a ratio of higher 2nd order vs 3rd order you will hear an improvement. (in SE amps in this case)
PP being a different animal since it cancels second order harmonics.
my own direct example was measuring 5% distortion, predominantly second harmonic with Hammond 1628SE with DC 2a3 circuit. after swapping ONLY OUTPUT TRANSFORMERS that measurement dropped to < 1.5% THD, again predominantly second order.
before I measured I knew it sounded considerably better. my ears were my first "measurement". after I measured I found a correlation with a reduction in total distortion being an improvement, assuming more even order than odd order.
another example being a cheap SE amp I built with Edcor 15w SE output transformers.
before adding feedback I measured 5% distortion. after several different adjustments I found a "moderate amount of feedback" reduced THD and allowed 2nd order to dominate. it sounded better. if I used more feedback to lower THD but didn't watch the ratio of 2nd to 3rd then the sound became sterile. the middle ground gave me 2.2% THD at 1 watt and sounded considerably better than 5% THD without feedback.
now when I setup an amp with feedback I don't even listen until after I've tweaked the feedback resistors with distortion analyzer/spectrum analyzer. its a major time saver and was a pretty big break through for me.
Then please explain why solid state amps can have great numbers but sound terrible?
modern solid state gear sounds great.
So then why are all of us on this forum are building tube gear? Nostalgia?
"So then why are all of us on this forum are building tube gear? Nostalgia?"
Well, in my case yes, I suppose that is the reason, actually. I haven't personally experienced any superiority of tube sound over solid-state sound, and I would in any case only believe it if it was verifiable in double-blind testing. I tend to be naturally sceptical about unverified, or unverifiable, impressionistic claims.
But I do like the nostalgic feeling, and the warm glow of the tubes. And since I mostly build OTL amplifiers, there is plenty of warmth in the glow!
Chris
To each his own, but if you do a double blind with a good se amp vs solid state I am willing to bet you will be a convert.
"To each his own, but if you do a double blind with a good se amp vs solid state I am willing to bet you will be a convert."
There was an interesting set of listening experiments reported, under the name of the "Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge." Apparently Richard Clark, and audio engineer, offerd serious money to anyone who could demonstrate the ability to discriminate, under double blind conditions, between their favourite amplifier and a fiducial amplifier he supplied. More or less the only restrictive conditions were that the distortion of the challenge amplifier had to be less than about 2%, and that he (Clark) would make a simple RC network to balance any deficiency in the frequency response of the challenge amplifier against that of the fiducial amplifier. The challenger could control other things, like choice of sound source, choice of recordings, etc.
Apparently thousands tried the challenge, including "serious" audiophiles, and nobody succeeded.
The "take home" from this would appear to be that if the SE amp were indeed to prove to be distinguishable in double-blind testing, it would either be because of some frequency-response deficiency that could easily be mocked up with a solid-state amplifier and a simple RC network, or else because of high distortion. If somebody finds they prefer high distortion then that is absolutely fine, but it could hardly be called a high-fidelity reproduction of the original signal.
I know that this is just a report of one set of experiments. But I find it puzzling sometimes that some audiophiles seem to display a considerable reluctance to trying to get to the bottom of why they find the sound of the SE amplifier more pleasing. (Even if it is a real and verifiable difference.)
Again, I'm not meaning to be critical. I just feel that if there are discernable differences, it would be good to know why they exist.
Chris
How about a double blind, in home, long term test?Rig it so the listener doesn't know which amp he's listening to, day to day in his normal routine, for 2 weeks and then switch for 2 weeks and then switch back.
I bet many would take Richard Clark's money under those conditions.
Sitting in a room, with the listener's hearing ability being "tested", switching back and forth is just too unnatural a situation to prove (or dis-prove) anything.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 10/21/14
I think the distortion is a part of the appeal of the SE amp. The type it has is more pleasing than the type a push pullamp has.
As for solid state, the biggest complaint I had with them was listener fatigue, a very real problem. I can listen to SE amps for hours without any fatigue, but that was never the case before I switched from solid state.
No one told you to set up the amplifier with numbers. You're throwing out a smokescreen to cover the insane idea that you can fix the entire system - including the listening environment - by kludging one component. As a matter of fact, you started arguing the minute I said you should tune the amplifier first - by ear. Make up your mind, Vinnie. You either want the amplifier right, or you don't. If you want valid advice and suggestions from people here with years more experience than you at this sort of thing, I suggest you don't give them a hard time when they try to help.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Let's not go there again. You have a tendency to think that your way is the only right way. It's not.
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: