[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
216.199.169.94
In Reply to: RE: Carver Challenge PDF file online posted by andy_c on January 10, 2008 at 11:02:41
Andy,
High end audio ONLY takes on an air of mysticism for those who cannot accept the fact that science cannot explain everything about the relationship of measurements to perception. Presently ---I don't believe forever--- it's beyond our grasp to make a meaningful correlation between the two. Carver's results don't provide the nice counterexample to that, you seem to believe it does, but rather it serves to prove my point.
I remember reading this very article when it first came appeared some 30 years ago IIRC. I was about 24 back then and really excited by this challenge. From the appearance of things a young guy like I was then who couldn't afford to purchase "world-class" tubed monoblocs, now didn't have to. I just had to wait for Carver to market his new tranfer-function modified amps and I'd have the same exact sound of those "world-class" tubed monoblocs or darn close to it! Unfortunately when the new Carver tranfer-function modified amps came out they sounded like the inexpensive solid state amps they were. Fact is my HK Citation 16 was quite noticably a more realistic sounding amp "IF" live, unamplified music is your reference standard.
You missed one extremely important point about the "Challenge." Bob couldn't take measurements of the "world-class" tubed monoblocs, interpret what those measurements meant and then adjust his solid state amps accordingly. Yet that's the very thing that correlating measurements to perception would entail! Bob didn’t even concern himself about the measurements of the "world-class" tubed monoblocs. In fact Bob admits that he is not sure himself about the audible effects of some of the parameters he juggled to match the transfer-functions of his amp to that of tubed monoblocs. All Bob needed to do was duplicate, at the output of his amplifier, the sum of their effects at the output of the reference amp. It is obviously a whole lot easier to connect two amps and null out their differences than it is to take measurements, interpret what those measurements meant and then adjust another amp to match it.
In reality Bob couldn't duplicate the sound of those "world-class" tubed monoblocs in his actual production amps. As is witnessed by the sound of Carvers's production tranfer-function modified amps. The part you and Mr Carver missed is that unless he continued to use all those a half-dozen small potentiometers that he had wired into his M 1.0 amplifier as "distortion pots" he wouldn't have the same modified transfer-function. Even if he did a redesign ---which I believe is what he did--- he still couldn't duplicate the sound of those "world-class" tubed monoblocs. Once again this is witnessed by the sound of Carvers's production tranfer-function modified amps. None of which were hailed as sounding like or being even close to, let alone the equal of those "world-class" tubed monoblocs.
So while my hat's off to Mr Carver for achieving the results he did. It doesn't disprove my assertion of the fact that science cannot sufficiently explain the relationship of measurements to human perception of sound. The fact is Andy the Carver Challenge supports my statement. Bob Carver supports my statement when he admits he is not sure himself about the audible effects of some of the parameters he juggled to match the transfer-functions of his amp to that of tubed monoblocs. Bob Carver futher supports my statement by NOT taking measurements of the "world-class" tubed monoblocs, interpreting what those measurements meant and then adjusting his amps accordingly!
Thetubeguy1954
A Rational Subjectivist
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]