 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.244.9.241
In Reply to: Re: Out of curiosity posted by AJinFLA on February 26, 2007 at 19:31:10:
Hi AJ,I didn't design the Creek intregrated amplifier (or any other for that matter), so I can't comment as to why it sounds good. It's not perfect (my Audio Note single-ended amps are more 3D and "you are there" experience) but is good solid-state for the money.
Music and hi-fi products are created to provide enjoyment to people. That is their ultimate goal and purpose. If a product designer or engineer is not a music or hi-fi enthusiast and doesn't have the passion, then how will they know if/when they created a good product, let alone the best they can for the budget or other constraints? No piece of test equipment will tell them so. Using you analogy, someone who works on Ferrari's F1 race team I doubt is there simply because "it's a cool job" - they're on the team because of their skills, ability, and passion. I'm no BMW fan, but I know they have a requirement for their engineers to be able to drive the Nürburgring track within a specific time. This is for the same reason.
Watch the show American Chopper. From what I've observed all their main staff involved with creating and building the bikes is motorcycle enthusiasts. I think it shows in the creativity and workmanship of their products. Samuel Adams beer is another example - their founder Jim Cook is a beer junkie and it shows in their product.
Yes, big companies have the financial resources to develop state-of-the-art R&D and test facilities, have the best evaluation rooms and equipment, etc. that small manufacturer's could only dream, yet they usually don't. Harman's facilities leave a lot to be desired in terms of demo/evaluation rooms. Their high-speed speaker switcher doesn't play speakers in a manner that is representative of actual home environments (mono - not stereo, room overly dead), and their listening panel members aren't usually audio enthusiasts which I think is a problem if one is trying to extract the most performance from a product. Toole himself is not much of a listener, as I personally witnessed one afternoon in 2000. From what I've read B&O seems to have an interesting facility which some day I'd like to visit.
If a magazine like Hi-Fi Choice, who perform group product evaluations using blind methods to a listening panel, say one product is better sounding than another, then their findings are backed through plausible testing methods. Again products from mainstream brands have received good reviews too, but in HFC they seem to receive them less frequently than smaller, specialist brands.In my experience, the best way to reduce the overwhelming influence of speaker-room interface is through directional speakers. As you know, this is one of the main design goals in my Sequence speakers. My other comment is not to expose oneself to loud sound levels from music or industry or other sound sources. These are all recent developments in mankind's history and detrimental to hearing acuity. The better a person can hear, the more likely the differences they can hear.
Donald North
Follow Ups:
DN - I didn't design the Creek integrated amplifier (or any other for that matter), so I can't comment as to why it sounds good.
It's not perfect (my Audio Note single-ended amps are more 3D and "you are there" experience) but is good solid-state for the money.I'm no amp designer myself, but that is besides the point. The question was why does the Creek or other tube like SS designs not have the Lavardin described thermal distortion audible effects when they should. Or does they? Or is Lavardin (and those who claim to hear the "effect") simply wrong? Wouldn't you at least be interested in finding out?
FYI, all SE systems that I have heard have sounded rather dreadful.
But since I am incapable of hearing "through" entire systems and isolating only amplifier sound, not much conclusion can be drawn.
Perhaps it was poor "synergy" as I have often been told.
Never had a SE in my own system (with all else held constant) that I could live with. Woefully inadequate power and a bit too much syrupy sweetener special effects for my taste.DN - Music and hi-fi products are created to provide enjoyment to people. That is their ultimate goal and purpose.
Agreed.
DN - Watch the show American Chopper.
I don't watch TV. Don't even have cable (except for Internet). I'm aware of that show.
DN - Yes, big companies have the financial resources to develop state-of-the-art R&D and test facilities, have the best evaluation rooms and equipment, etc. that small manufacturer's could only dream, yet they usually don't. Harman's facilities leave a lot to be desired in terms of demo/evaluation rooms. Their high-speed speaker switcher doesn't play speakers in a manner that is representative of actual home environments (mono - not stereo, room overly dead), and their listening panel members aren't usually audio enthusiasts which I think is a problem if one is trying to extract the most performance from a product.
Their listening panels are probably *far* better at judging that "Joe strictly uncontrolled listening at home audiophile" where magic dots have a huge impact on sound, etc.
My main critique would be that their training include extensive listening to live *unamplified* sound. Then they might start hearing those darn boxes :-).
Harmans Infinity line scores at the very top in its price range (go listen to similar priced boxes) as does Revel (as good as it gets within the box paradigm). They must be doing something right.DN - Toole himself is not much of a listener, as I personally witnessed one afternoon in 2000.
Please expand. That is quite vague.
DN - From what I've read B&O seems to have an interesting facility which some day I'd like to visit.
I'd rather visit ME-Geithain to see their flow resistance techniques.
Very applicable for a great many rooms that audiophiles think they are getting good sound from. Never been impressed with B&O's speakers irregardless of their facilities.DN - If a magazine like Hi-Fi Choice, who perform group product evaluations using blind methods to a listening panel, say one product is better sounding than another, then their findings are backed through plausible testing methods.
I cannot seem to find anything about their test controls on line.
Link? I may have to purchase a hard copy at the local bookstore.DN - Again products from mainstream brands have received good reviews too, but in HFC they seem to receive them less frequently than smaller, specialist brands.
Yes, that worries me about the validity of their test methods. Unless of course the countless previous tests which show that to be quite the opposite are all flawed. Did you notice the RMAF tube vs ss test on Cordell's site? Test procedures need to be tightened up, but...
DN - In my experience, the best way to reduce the overwhelming influence of speaker-room interface is through directional speakers. As you know, this is one of the main design goals in my Sequence speakers. My other comment is not to expose oneself to loud sound levels from music or industry or other sound sources. These are all recent developments in mankind's history and detrimental to hearing acuity. The better a person can hear, the more likely the differences they can hear.
But of course :-).
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Hi AJ,First, I have made no claim that the Creek or Arcam integrated amplifiers, which I recently heard, sound like a tube amplifier. I said they sounded good.
I have not heard the Lavardin amplifier (one of my friends is their Swedish distributor and speaks highly of it), and I mentioned it for the purpose to serve as an example of people trying to find alternative measurements (like their memory distortion test) which might better correlate with people's listening findings of different amplifiers.
In my experience amplifiers and passive speakers need to be selected as a set. Some pairings offer excellent "synergy" while others do not. SET amplifiers being of lower power and high output impedance, in my opinion, require extra attention to their speaking pairing, together with room size and listening level preference. Certainly someone trying to reproduce full orchestra levels will not get far with a 8W amplifier and 82dB sensitive speakers!
I listen at lower volume levels. This has always been my style. I designed my first higher efficiency (93dB/ 8 ohms) speaker in 1998 which was a full-range, wide baffle floorstander with my quad midrange/tweeter array, like on my Sequence speakers, but with 6.5" woofers. Because of my listening level preference and the efficiency of the speakers, I can easily evaluate any amplifier regardless of power, know that it is outputing low power and is no where near clipping, and hear how it sounds. Realizing that tube amplifiers, especially SET's, have high output impedances (2 ohms average on the 8 ohm tap for a SET) compared to their solid-state cousins ( <0.2 ohms typically), I designed separate crossovers to take this loading into account to achieve the same, net frequency response.
Some tube amps sound soft and slow while others are fast, dynamic, detailed. It depends on the topology and construction.
I don't know all the details of your speakers, but if you like to listen at higher levels than I do, perhaps a SET might not be the best match for them.
A panel listening to a single speaker in mono in only one room position in an overly damped room does provide some useful data but has its limitations: Image width, depth, and focus, for example requires two speakers in stereo for judgment.
I do agree, there are bigger acoustical problems at hand in every room that simply cannot be cured by "magic dots". But do also keep in mind, music is an emotional experience, not analytical, and emotional experiences are processed in a different section the brain than analytical ones.
When I was at Boston Acoustics in 1995, they were planning and designing the building for their new (now current) location in Peabody, MA. I made the suggestion to have 2 demo/listening rooms side-by-side for performing live-feed evaluations (like we did at Caltech). You can learn a lot about the speaker by hearing someone live talk or play an instrument or make sounds and then walk next door and hear it through a speaker. This suggestion fell on deaf ears and was quickly dismissed.
I have heard the Infinity and Revel speakers and personally don't like them. I have spent particular time listening to the Revel Gem, Studio, and Salon. To me these speakers sound unnatural, amusical, and mechanical (especially the Studio and Salon). I attribute this to their use of metal cone midranges, high-order crossover slopes (which cause energy storage albeit brief and a lot of group delay particularly on woofer-midrange crossovers), and ported cabinets (high group delay in the tens of milliseconds and poor damping).
I worked in the Harman Multimedia group as a speaker engineer. Across from me sat a colleague who was also a speaker engineer and electronic designer. He was working on a new 3-piece desktop speaker system and in the final tuning stages. In his work area was also the system it was replacing. One day Floyd was walking through our area and my colleague asked if he'd like to hear the new system. Floyd sat down and listened to both the old and new systems. Afterwards when asked, he said he liked the older system of the two because "it sounded fuller". That was the extent of his description and apparently basis for decision. My colleague and I had both heard and compared these two systems. The older system did have a bit more low frequency extension than the new one, however it had poor sounding midrange and treble, sounding veiled, not clear or detailed, vague imaging, and shut-in. In comparison the new system sounded much more clear, intelligible, focused imaging, and spacious in the midrange and treble. Myself, my colleague, and others I know in the group preferred the sound of the new system. To me it was no comparison, the new system was clearly better.
You will have to go to the newsstand or bookstore and buy the magazine Hi-Fi Choice. They don't in every issue describe their test methodology, so you will have to follow them for a while or contact them directly
Continuing with my previous comments, particularly in this era of multi-channel, surround sound amplifiers and receivers, do you realize how many companies especially mass-market ones today don't design their products in-house and farm them out to OEM factories? They simply send these OEM's a feature set list, rated specifications (frequency response, power output, THD, S/N), and a drawing or rendering of the front of the unit!
Why does it worry you about the validity of Hi-Fi Choice's test methods if products from mass-market, mainstream brands receive less frequently "recommended" or "best buy" ratings than those which happen to be from smaller, specialist companies? If they genuinely are performing blind tests with a panel, then shouldn't the results be valid? It seems to me, you reap what you sow. I can assure you, the sound and performance we achieve in an AuraSound speaker driver, is not by accident or chance.
Donald North
Hi Donald,lest we forget my original question "What makes the Arcam or Creek (sound) better than the HK?", the answers seem rather elusive.
Obviously, if it is something physically measurable, then you are not sure of what it is. If it is something that is not physically measurable, then I'm not sure what it is.
Your subjective experience, based on auditory memory, between the three brands in question would not fall under controlled comparison listening IMHO. Since you have stated that synergy is an important factor, perhaps the HK's you listened to had poor synergy with the other items in the system while the Creek & Arcam did not. I'm not very confident that any human would be able to tell them apart in controlled unsighted listening, but that is generally not how these type of experiences are determined.
Until I see what methods the HiFi News tests are using, I will withhold judgement. Maybe I will post it as a topic on other forums to see if more light can be shed on this matter.DN - I can assure you, the sound and performance we achieve in an AuraSound speaker driver, is not by accident or chance.
Yes, I know. The excellent measurements show this. Solid engineering is obvious.
DN - I attribute this to their use of metal cone midranges
If you used anything but metal for the coaxial drivers I would be distraught. I can get paper flavoring neo coaxs from BMS, B&C, etc.
The JBL was the only all rigid material coincident coax with proper surround that I could find. TAD makes a nice one, but not for DIY.
My only issue with the JBL is that I wish it were larger, maybe 8" diameter cone, to get further down into the lower mids upper bass region when crossing over.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Donald,It sounds like you are not going to win in this thread. However, I fully agree with you. I too am an avid reader of HIFI choice. Back in 1998 HK had a little integraded amplifier called the HK620. The hk620 was rated at 40 watts per channel and was pitted against the Arcam 8(the predecessor to the much improved 8r), the NAD 310 which was the predecessor to the current 320 and 320bee and a few other integrateds. The HK620 trounced the other amps in the group.
I went out and bought one. I felt that the HK620 was a nice little amp that was great for the money when matched up with a bright sounding source like the Marantz CD63se and Kef Coda 8 speakers. At that time all I was into was HK. I had previously owned a hk3350 reciever. However, when my system evolved and I got into tubes and amps like the McCormack DNA.5 deluxe, the HK's stripes darker sonic signature became more apparent. I also had a HK pa2100 power amp and all three of the HK's sounded very similiar.
A year or so later I purchased an Arcam 8r based on a great review in Hifi choice. The Arcam was a great little amp, bright, detailed, and colourful sounding. Not quite the level of the McCormack or my tube amps, but it was much better sounding than the HK's.
I'm sorry I sold off all the great amps I had, but I got married and needed the cash. My current amp is a stop gap until I can afford the higher end stuff again.
The only hk970, Hk's only two channel integrated amp, was recently reviewed in Hifi Choice. And it was descibed as bright and detailed. I find this quite unusual. The amp is only available in Europe and was probably voiced for the UK. It's ashame that this amp is'nt available in the US.
BTW, Your professional knowledge is much appreciated. Thank you for your insightful posts. I wish more designers and engineers would post on these boards.
regards,
Dennis
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
