|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.187.201.31
In Reply to: RE: I like honest in my amplifiers regardless whether they are SS or tube type. posted by Michael Samra on October 25, 2014 at 10:32:29
I'm told by designers that that nice second harmonic is a result of the asymmetrical SET amplification. But no amp is perfect and I guess we choose our favorite colorations. A friend once wrote an article called 'Color Me Perfect'. And Nelson Pass, who I respect greatly, knows about the asymmetry but likes the sound which is why he designs single ended solid state amps.
Follow Ups:
LOL
When I posted that about how I like honest,that's a little inside joke between Eli Duttman and myself we both like correctness in amps and I was hoping he read that and commented.We like some second order distortion as well but not to excess and I agree with what you say as well when it comes to perception of sonics for certain individuals.AAMOF,here is an excerpt from the article from the early 60s called,why hifi experts disagree by J Gordon Holt. It more or less sums up audiophiles.
Many writers of books and articles about high fidelity advise the prospective buyer merely to choose what sounds good to him. Certainly there is no sense in anybody's choosing a music system whose sound he doesn't like, but in a field where definite standards of quality exist, simply liking something does not necessarily mean that it is good, by those standards. A person who likes abstract art, for instance, may be judging it by any number of criteria, but resemblance to the original scene is not one of them. If it were evaluated on the basis of its "fidelity," or resemblance to the original scene, it would have to be judged a very poor copy. Similarly, the listener who prefers his sound shrill and brassy is perfectly entitled to his preference, but he is not choosing on the basis of fidelity, either.
This raises the question of whether high-fidelity can, or should be, better than the real thing. Certainly it can be made to sound richer, or bigger, or more highly detailed in a recording than it ever is in the concert hall, and the net result may actually be more exciting than anything heard at a live performance. The gimmicked recording may even, on occasion, serve the intent of the music better than a concert hall performance, but whether it sounds better or worse than the original, it is not true to the original, and thus cannot be considered a high-fidelity reproduction.
Sound recording may eventually become a creative art in its own right, producing musical sounds that bear no relation to any natural sounds. Indeed, some branches of it—pops and so-called electronic music—are already well on their way in that direction. This is not high fidelity, though, and there's no sense pretending that it is.
As long as we are concerned with the realistic reproduction of sound, the original sound must stand as the criterion by which the reproduction is judged, and most hi-fi experts agree that this is as it should be. The problem, however, lies in defining this original that is to be duplicated.
F'rinstance, take one symphony orchestra, place it on-stage in one concert hall, and then try listening to it from a) the front row, b) the twentieth row, and c) the fourth row of the second balcony (or peanut gallery). The orchestra will sound quite different from each location, so which of its sounds is the one that best represents the orchestra? Obviously, the sound that is heard from the best seat is the best representation of the orchestral sound, but who is going to claim that his preference for a seating location is the only valid preference, and that anyone who prefers to sit elsewhere has bad judgment? Nobody but a dyed-in-the-wool nut will take this attitude.
"
Your last paragraph about different seats is why I'd argue that frequency response is secondary to sounding like live music even though it's necessary for accuracy.
I don't recall the article by Gordon Holt. I'll have to check my back issues from the 60s. But mentioning him makes me a bit sad. We were friends in the 70s in the Philadelphia area and stayed long distance pals until the end. He was a special guy.
"
Hah! Please tell me I'm not the only one who heard the gag.
what I WANT is the realism of a Plasma tweeter, the realism of a planar midrange, and the realism of a Khorn bass bin.
Trouble is, the wave launch of all three is distinctly different.
And yet... to me those three drivers embody the purist sound I have encountered. Hence, why I own Quads and Khorns {JBL 2360 horns/2445J drivers} and Khorn bass bins.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Just curious, which do you listen to the most?
Dave
Sorry I took so long to post... working out of town.
The modified Khorns.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
which is why sometimes it's better to compromise on given drivers for specific band widths to choose ones that go together better. It's the sum of the parts that's most important.
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: