|
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 Triode_Kingdom on October 21, 2014 at 06:19:05
Have to yell foul on "undefined and highly inaccurate". Just what exactly do those phrases mean anyway? Any recording is inaccurate from the stand point of it not being a true reproduction of what was played where it was played. We should not kid or selves into thinking an exact reproduction is even possible. If we want live sound we need to go to the place it's being played when it's being played and listen to it there.
So what does that leave us with? We can make recordings and play them back in a way that pleases us. That is all. Trying to do anything more than that is an exercise in futility.
Follow Ups:
" Any recording is inaccurate ....[and not a true representation]...of what was played where it was played"
If that's what you meant to say....I agree.
However, as the end user (the guy with a copy of the recording in hand and a home stereo with which to play it on) I have no wish to try to correct for the inaccuracies of the recording.
Anything I do to correct for the inaccuracies of one recording will only exacerbate the inaccuracies of the next recording. No two recording are flawed in the same way.
My goal is to reproduce the recording (with all of it's flaws) as accurately as I can.
Now, as a recording engineer I am in a position to reduce the inaccuracies of a recording that I'm involved with but as the end user....it's out of my hands.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
We both know that some gear is more forgiving of less than perfect recordings than other equipment. I see no point in having equipment that limits you to audiophile grade recordings to be able to enjoy the music.
That's why I listen to several different kinds of music when I am finishing up an amp, to see if it will do well with most of what I listen to. Numbers alone will not tell you that.
"We both know that some gear is more forgiving of less than perfect recordings than other equipment."
Vinnie, you and I have different goals.
I like brutally non-forgiving playback.
If the recording is lush and warm and rich then that's what I want coming out of the speakers.
If the recording is thin and edgy and bright to a fault then that's what I want coming out of the speakers.
Each to his own.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'll drink to that.
"Trying to do anything more than that is an exercise in futility."
Optimizing an amplifier so that the signal impressed on its input is faithfully reproduced at its output is not a futile gesture. On the other hand, I predict that your attempt to take what you believe to be flawed program material and sculpt it into something more palatable with vacuum tubes will prove to be both an impractical and impossible task.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
What I am saying is that if numbers are the only thing that matters we would all be listening to solid state gear. Obviously there is more to it than that and your ears are the only thing that can tell you when you finally have it right.
" if numbers are the only thing that matters"
No one said any such thing, nor is that what we've been talking about.
You've made it clear that in your opinion, the performance of the amplifier itself is of no importance except as you yourself are able to ascertain it by ear within the system (including environment) as a whole. That concept simply couldn't be more wrong or misguided. You will never assemble a truly high-end system until you've first ensured that each individual component can truly contribute the absolute best of which it is capable.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
".... we would all be listening to solid state gear"
That's not true at all.
SS gear produces high ordered HD and even if it's at very low percentages, it's audible.
I think it's safe to say, if THD was the only thing that matters we would all be listening to solid state gear. But THD tells us almost nothing about how an amplifier will sound.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one [ideal] tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!""D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC Research Labs and Norman Crowhurst both proposed weighting harmonics by the square or cube of the order to [better] reflect audibility and annoyance-factor, and it's a shame their suggestions were never carried out. To this day, it's the 2nd harmonics that dominates THD device measurements, but it's the ones that are higher than that (even though they may be 20dB lower) that we hear. That's why a THD spec, without reference to the complete spectrogram, is essentially useless, and not only that, potentially quite misleading."
From Lynn Olson webpage.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 10/21/14
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: