|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: What Constitues A "Properly Designed" Amp? posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 13, 2007 at 06:31:53:
Curious minds want to know.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
Pat D-Cake,The very obvious and quite simply answer is, I wanted to know what others here at PHP considered the correct answers for 1-5 below to be! Gosh Pat D-Cake for someone who attempts to come off as an intelligent debater and philosopher, I'm amazed at how often you need the blatantly obvious explained to you... If you spent 1/10th the time you took harassing me with stupid questions and used it to talk intelligently about the topics raised, you might actually be worth talking with. As it is once again you've offered NOTHING of value to the topic raised.
1) What figure represents what high input impedance is?
2) What figure represents what low output impedance is?
3) What level of deviation +/- 1dB, +/- 3dB, +/- 5dB etc. and what range of frequencies 20-20Khz, 10-100Khz, 1-1Mhz etc constitutes flat frequency response?
4) What figure represents what low distortion is?
5) What figure represents what low noise floor is?
Pardon me, but your own thread title reads: "What Constitues [sic] A "Properly Designed" Amp?"And several people have given you their own insightful takes on the matter.
Now, we find you ignore your own question and really want people here to explicitate what Peter Aczel meant! And, as I have pointed out, the proper person to ask about those specific criteria is Peter Aczel himself. We are not responsibile for his wording.
Besides, you also include some seemingly contrary to fact assumptions in your second set of questions about who decided it, as if there were some widely recognized authority for setting such criteria. Again, the person to ask is Peter Aczel, after cleaning up those questions to make better sense.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,As I told you many times you just obfuscate topics raised by asking questions that are blatantly obvious to everyone but you! "IF" I wanted to know Aczel's opinion I would have asked him, by asking on PHP the implication is I want the members opinions.
As far as your further attempt to obscure the topic by claiming "We are not responsibile for his wording." Who the heck ever asked you or anyone else to be responsible for these words? Many here appear to agree with them, yourself included, so you should have an opinion on the matter. Or is this just one more case of you following the leader and allowing others to make up your mind for you? Let's see just read what Real JJ, Klaus and Aczel say, cut and paste and we'll know what you really believe, huh?
Once again you have absolutely ZERO to offer to the topic raised. But rather just prefer to cloud the issue with questions about the obvious and remarks that hold no relevance to the topic, like the assinine comment about not being responsible for Aczel's words! For all your attempts at appearing like an intelligent debater and philospher your posts belie that impression.
Have a nice day...
well?
It's the old "get it from the horse's mouth" rather than getting it second hand.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pointing isn't answering. An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one. That is just for starters.
"An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one."To some extent, you have a point. But tubey wants to know what Peter Aczel means by "well designed amplifier" and I quite properly pointed out that he should ask Mr. Aczel, or perhaps one of his associates.
As well, tubey makes some contrary to fact assumptions in his questions. In the past, he seems to have thought that just because he puts a question, that it can and ought to be answered in the same terms in which he posed it. But not all questions make sense.
First of all, his questions about thresholds assumes there is some figure which should answer each question properly, and for that matter, you may do so, as well. But this is not true, as far as I can tell. What constitutes 'quiet enough,' for example, would vary with the sensitivity of the speakers, the frequency range of the noise, the listening level, and the listeners' hearing acuity, "just for starters."
Second, tubey wants to know who set the accepted standards for the various criteria. As Presto has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any universally accepted standards for the characteristics he asks about. This does not necessarily mean that Mr. Aczel's criteria would be completely arbitrary, as he may base them on his long experience with DBTs. So again, the appropriate person to ask about about Peter Aczel's reasons for saying what he does is Mr. Aczel or maybe one of his associates.
Both you and tubey seem to want to dictate linguistic usage. Tubey seems to think his definition of accuracy in audio components should be accepted as opposed to Richard Greene's--and Richard's have the distinct virtue of being measureable. You want to dictate what constitutes an answer, even though in this situation, the most appropriate answer is to direct tubey to the person whose statements he questions, Mr. Aczel.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
So what is the point? Do you have nothing better to do? I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification. That clarified question had nothing to do with Peter Aczel and addressed the parameters of speaker load. And still you hang on to the semantics of the orignal question instead of addressing the clarified version. That smacks of a desire to argue about stupid things rather than offer meaningful answers. Hey if that's what gives you a woody whatever.
You say "I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification." Which of the many questions did you clarify? And where?Moreover, if you think trying to get clear questions and intelligible discourse is silly, so be it.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
I'd be happy to ask him personally. I never realized he originated the use of such terminology in audio discussion.
Somebody posted his email address here a while ago. You might contact Tom Nousaine and ask him to pass the message along."I never realized he originated the use of such terminology in audio discussion."
I doubt that he did. But "well designed" does not imply a specific set of criteria for audio. Well designed for what purposes?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,Stop trwisting the truth you know that "well designed" as used by Aczel does in fact apply to a specific set of criteria for audio. In fact is his "review" of the AudioDigit Class T-Amp Aczel said:
The Sound, As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped. The MC8x100 is a special case because of its peculiar THD+N vs. power curves, allowing considerable high-distortion output beyond the clipping point. The expectation of some sonic anomalies is therefore not altogether unreasonable. For a quick check, I connected the amplifier to a pair of floor-standing wide-range speakers of decent quality (Sony SS-K90ED’s), with channels 1 and 5 feeding left and right. I thought I heard a few subtle, momentary sounds I didn’t like. An ABX comparison with a conventional amplifier of comparable power would definitely be in order. That takes time, and I want to post this already delayed review forthwith. I’ll do the ABX tests later and append the results here when I am done. (Don’t expect anything revelatory.)
Click on link below for access to the complete context of Aczel's words....
Thetubeguy1954
No, I am not at all twisting the truth, you are just confusing things again. I have often pointed out that you confuse universal and particular propositions.I have stated that "well designed" does not imply any specific requirements. That is a general consideration and I'm sticking to it.
If all you want to know is what Peter Aczel meant by a "well designed" amplifier, by all means read what he says and figure it out. But that isn't the question you asked. Peter Aczel is only one individual and others may and do have different design criteria met to meet different goals, as several here have pointed out. And this is a point you resist. Just considered by itself, the phrase "well designed amplifier" is rather vague and one needs to have more detail before it is really very meaningful in a given situation.
I suspect you are upset that your amplifier (which is in your opinion a "world class" tube amplifier) does not meet Aczel's requirements for a well designed amplifier. Too bad. Get over it.
My second suspicion is that you would then like to accuse Aczel of misusing the English language, and are further upset that you can't get anyone to agree with you, even those who have different conceptions of what they would consider a well designed amplifier. Most people see that "well designed" can be interpreted in different ways for different purposes. But Peter Aczel has been pretty clear (even for you) about what he expects of a well designed amplifier. You don't seem to share those expectations and there is no particular reason why you should if you don't want to. Others have still different things in mind.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Quit it you're killing me I'm laughing so hard! You're so desperate to be correct at all costs, that you're attempting to over complicate a simple question in yet another lame attempt to be the intelligent debater and philosopher. Remember Ray Liotta GoodFellas? I can just picture him looking at you and saying "You're a funny guy!"
Here you are assuming once again. I think the real problem is YOU'RE the one who is jealous, not me. I think it just eats at you that you don't own a world class amp like the Mastersound, and thus this creates your innate need to respond negatively to almost everything I say. Which in turns feeds your obsession with believing I'm upset because my amp doesn't meet Aczel's opinion of what and when amps will be inaudibly different. Heck if I wanted anything like that I could go and buy something like you own! I think I'll stay with what I have and love. After all it's served me so well these last 5 years why change now?
Pat I'm sorry you're so unhappy with your system. But like you told me too bad. Get over it or buy a real audio system. The choice is yours... Oh yes if you believe Aczel's fairy tales I hear Grimm Brothers makes good reading as well. The reality is if you were 1/2 as happy with your system as I am with mind you wouldn't be so obsessed with me and everything I say. Every notice how seldom I respond to your posts unless of course it's because your obsession has led you to respond negatively (either directly or through others) to something I've said in one of my posts and then I respond back to you? It quite clear that I can leave you alone and let you print what you want, but you being obsessed with me and unhappy with what you own cannot do the same with me, no matter how much I wish you would.
Have a nice day...
That's the main question you pose. It is general question and covers a lot more than just the views of a particular individual.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Peter Aczel and Tube Guy have a lot in common here, because neither one of them have the technical training/education to really understand them. Then again 99% of the critics & users don't either so they are in good company
d.b.
That's no doubt true.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: