|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Not In MY Opinion They Haven't posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 15, 2007 at 16:44:23:
The orginal post wants to know if there are *benchmark* values for certain amplifier specfications and if there are, who in the heck made them.This is an excellent question, but there is not really a SPECIFIC correct answer. The numbers chosen for these attributes are chosen by the designer. Marketing will tell the designer that THD and IMD should be as low as possible, slew rate and damping factor should be as high as possible, and f/r should be within a 1/2db ( or better) from 10Hz (or 20) WAY past 20khz.
I think it's important to note that a lot of the "benchmarks" for these numbers probably have more to do with "marketing claim escalation" than they do with superior sonics. Case in point. New DAC chips - higher than ever S/N ratios and dynamic range - welded into soundcards with crappy board layouts, PC power supplies, and god-knows-what op-amps. So the PCI Card bench tests (with a RightMark analyser) like it's the best thing since sliced bread, but the bass sounds weak and thin because the thing has no balls, and the high end might sound shrill or brittle due to jitter issues.
My point? Specs are used for marketing. Anything used for marketing is SUPPOSED to look good. Some companies that make products that people seek because they sound good and last forever. As a result, they don't need to publish bullshit specs to sell their gear. Look at Bryston. Modular layout that puts a space shuttle to shame, great sound, and the best warranty in the biz. Not everyone's first choice for an audiophile amp, but Bryston is respected. Now, I am sure you can find CHEAPER amps than Bryston that, according to their specs, would put a Bryston to shame.
But somewhere along the line somewhere between specs and practice, that "bargain" amp that is 1/3 the price but also 1/2 the weight, with a 1 year limited warranty can't even hold a candle to the Bryston in raw power and transparency of sonice despite all of the impressive numbers it came to the table with.
Trouble is with numbers is that there are different ways to obtain numbers - not all tests are created equal and there is no "law" telling manufacturers which specific test to use for coming up their specs in the first place. Some companies (the good ones and pro ones) will cite the specific test (I.e. AES reference number). Others don't and sometimes leaving you wondering why. I would ask the real "amp designers" around here what they think. But I bet if you sent an amp to ten different "amp companies" and had them test the amp the way they test their OWN product (and market it) and you'd get ten different pictures of what kind of amp you're looking at.
So, not to be an ass, but I think before you can quantify what "numbers" constitute a benchmark for what is "good", you would need to clearly define the exact test method used to obtain those numbers (IMHO of course - I am not an amp designer).
I believe that numbers are great when you can use them to make corollary between the numbers and the sonics. But THIS "objective technically minded audiophile" still believes that MUSIC must be heard through the equipment. Without qualitative information about sonics to COMPARE to the numbers, how CAN we make a corollary that makes specs useful in the FIRST place?
Or do some objectivists buy amps after only reading the specs?
I sure as hell don't.
Cheers,
PrestoCheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- There is a reason why I answered so generally - Presto 11:34:33 04/16/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
