|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: Not a single objectivist offered a straight forward answer, Why? posted by Analog Scott on April 15, 2007 at 09:28:31:
Actually, Presto and several others have.The fact is what constitutes "well designed" varies with the purpose. Well designed for what purpose? And well designed for whom?
What would constitute a straightforward answer for you? Or are would you "rather ridicule than discuss?"
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
Pat D-Cake,At this time I haven't read all the responses to my post. But to answer your question of: "What would constitute a straightforward answer for you?" I'd say that answering the first 1-5 questions would have been a great start at a straightforward answer instead of skirting around them like so many did!
I think you really need to look at your second question "Or are would you "rather ridicule than discuss?" BEFORE responding like you are to the topic I raised...
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,
Presto
You were quite clear. You asked for numerical values. I don't see any ambiguity at all. I think it's obvious that no one here knows the answers. The best advice you got is to ask Peter Aczel himself since his qualifications apparently came out of left field. I'm surprised, though; I would have thought at least one PHP "Aczelhead" would have given you the numbers you requested.
eg impedance rquirements for tube and solid-state an be in 2 different groups, and distortion percentages depend on the spectrum - or at least even or odd harmonics.One can, of course, get silly to get around this - max distortion is 0.000001% for example, but that is of no practical use.
Clifff,What you stated is correct concerning solid state and tubed amps. But I was refering specifically to what Aczel stated in his review of the MC8x100 amp. When commenting about the Sound Aczel stated: 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.
So for two solid state amps...
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?and then...
1) Who deteremined these figures represent the acceptable or correct answers?
2) Is there detailed, documented proof that these are in fact the acceptable or correct answers and are they truly scientifically supported? Or are these figures arbitrarily reached?
3) Are there peer reviewed published studies available that proves these answers are in fact truly scientifically supported and agrees with the results of the detailed, documented proof? If not why are these figures still accepted?
4) Are there peer reviewed published studies available that disproves these answers are in fact truly scientifically supported and disagrees with the results of the detailed, documented proof? If there are, why are these studies rejected?
It is not "fact" or necesserally agreed by anyone else or even "true".If you want to plug in some numbers you will have to ask him. No-one else can tell what is in his mind.
Clifff,I agree that it is ONLY Aczel's opinion. Yet so many here support this opinion as if it's a fact! Some yourself included go on the attack when I refer to it as Aczel's dogma. Dogma can be defined as: "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."
As an opinion it holds no more weight than anyone else's, as dogma it's in an entirely different catagory. As you now state it's only an opinion. I'm good with that and wish to go on record as stating I believe Aczel's opinion is a faulty one that has no evidence of any peer reviewed published studies that support it. Hence like you said Clifff it's just his opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Have a nice day...
Thetubeguy1954
Who has said differently here? Besides yourself, that is. References please.The word "opinion" in professional or technical matters usually refers to "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." But the meaning does vary with the context.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D, in his typical fashion when called to the carpet to defend his beliefs is starting to back wheeling, back tracking, back peddling, back stabbing, oopps! Even though in previous rebuttals to comments I've made Pat D has specifically mentioned "properly designed" concerning audio components as if that term meant something to him, now Pat D is claiming this term is ONLY Aczel's opinion and if I want to know what it means I need to ask Aczel.However it's my contention that if a person uses a term in defense of their POV and to argue against anothers, then that term is now one that they've accepted, embraced and now used! That makes it more than simply another's opinion, otherwise why would they use it? Pat D claims he makes up his own mind and doesn't simply follow what Real JJ, Klaus, Clifff, Dan Banquer or Aczel says blindly as I suggested Pat D does. So if that's true shouldn't Pat D be able to defend what "properly designed" is and what makes an audio component such? If Pat D cannot do that how can he intelligently make the comments he does below?
Pat D said: "With 3 foot line level interconnects and 10 foot speaker cables, it's quite a different matter. Show that the differences are sufficient to be audible with properly designed equipment ."
Pat D whines that I didn't quote him correctly so here's his version of how it should have been quoted: You didn't give the entire relevant quote. Although I have told you that I do not exempt line level interconnects and speaker cable from LCR effects, you persist in implying that I do, thus creating a Straw Man. In this instance, you neglected to quote the last sentence, "Show that the differences are sufficient to be audible with properly designed equipment ." This clearly implies there will be some effects, and the measurements at Audioholics.com show that. You evidently haven't bothered to read the relevant articles there. But under what conditions are the differences audible?
Ok Pat D here's a reference where you've used "properly designed" yourself as a defense of your audio POV and not simply as a reference to Aczel's opinion. So PLEASE defend your usage of the trem and define what "properly designed" is and what makes an audio component such? If it's really your opinion and not just you following the objectivist leader again, you should now what "properly designed" it is and what makes it so!
Thetubeguy1954
You must consider me an authority.Below is the whole thread illustrating your confusions on the whole matter.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D I consider you to be an authority on all the things I wouldn't want to associate with. Incapable of making up your own mind, Contradicting yourself, Asking the blatantly obvious to be explained, Twisting the truth to fit your warped POVs, Seldom if ever providing a real answer to the questions asked of you and worse things that I won't go over yet once again.You're a bitter, jealous man who for some reason is obsessed with disproving virtually everything I say. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. It must be horrible to have what I say affect you so deeply. Haven't you noticed how I've stopped responding to what you say, unless you're responding to one of my posts or within a thread I've started? Why don't you try doing the same? Stop responding to what I say, unless I'm responding to one of your posts or within a thread you've started? I know your defensive nature is already looking for a way out of this suggestion. I'm sure it will be something along the lines of it's a public forum and we can all respond to whom we wish to.
But this is different, YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH ME! I know you're obsessed for I've asked you numerous times to simply stop responding to my posts and I'll stop responding to yours, but you simply just cannot do this. Your compulsive need to respond to my posts is out of your control. This need is so great it renders you incapable of doing just this one very simple thing. In fact your obsession is such that you almost always need/crave and must have that last word. But I'm going to help you out OK? First sell all that mid-fi crap you call an audio system. Second go buy a real stereo I'll even make some suggestions if you'll tell me what you can afford. I promise it will sound a lot better than what you listn to now. Finally go see a real therapist and be honest with them. In a few months you'll be a lot happier and in the end so will everyone else here at PHP!
nt
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Once again your back wheeling, back tracking, back stabbing, oopps. I ALWAYS realized it was ONLY an opinion and a highly flawed one at that. It's you and some of your fellow very vocal, very mistaken minority LFO's that appeared to accept Acze's opinions as dogma, NOT me.
Now that you've all been called to the carpet to support your beliefs in Aczel's assinine assessments, by giving actual fiqures to his criteria, as to when an amp will be transparent when it follows this criteria, now you claim it's only Aczel's opinion, who are we to answer for Aczel etc. That's what happens when you allow others to makeup your mind for you Pat. When you cut and paste parts from posts and articles by Real JJ, Klaus and Aczel amongst others and claim their ideas as your beliefs, it's hard to explain why you believe what you do, isn't it?
My advice is stop worrying about me and what I believe, you'll be a lot happier for it. Personally I don't believe you're capable of letting your obsession with me go. Try thinking for yourself instead of just simply believing what Real JJ, Klaus or Aczel says, That way next time you attack subjectivists with a comment you'll know why you believe what you said and you won't have to cower and say when questioned go ask Real JJ, Klaus or Aczel etc, it's their words, NOT mine! You really look very foolish when you do that.
Funny thing is you honestly believe you're this intelligent debator and philosophist. Yet except for a couple of your fellow LFO's who "pat" you on the back when you post like DB, you come off as a person who cannot make up his mind, doesn't really know what he believes and almost always back wheels and back tracks when pressed for an answer. Then you revert to obfuscating by asking for the blatantly obvious to be explained to you (I guess to give you time to think) and then you start pretending everyone else is changing their ground, when the reality is you're just finally seeing the question for what it really is.
I told you more than once, PLEASE just ignore me and I'll ignore you. You have absolutely NOTHING of value to add to any topic I raise and I'm growing weary wasting my time explaining the blatantly obvious to you over and over again...
This just supports it. Nope no objectivist has offered such an answer. For kicks, lets just say i wanted to buy such an amp. Cite one answer from any objectivist thus far that would help give me any clue what to buy.
the answer is... well why don't you answer it?LOL!
Several people have given straightforward answers--but they're not the same. Pity you have thus far failed to understand my explanation of why that is so."For kicks, lets just say i wanted to buy such an amp. Cite one answer from any objectivist thus far that would help give me any clue what to buy."
Ahh, changing the ground! You hadn't asked. Are you looking for another amplifier? What are the requirements? No subjectivist has told you what to buy, either.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
He is clearly looking for an answer from those that use this qualification when they claim all such amps sound the same. I am not such a person. My idea of a properly designed amp won't be what the OP is looking for.> > Several people have given straightforward answers--but they're not the same. Pity you have thus far failed to understand my explanation of why that is so.
What explination would that be? Please feel free to quot any such "explination."
> > "For kicks, lets just say i wanted to buy such an amp. Cite one answer from any objectivist thus far that would help give me any clue what to buy."Ahh, changing the ground!
How am I changing the ground? The idea was for someone to explain what such an amp is. I just highlighted the fact that no objectivist has done so so far by pointing out that should someone want to buy such an amp the objectivists have thus far offered nothing to even identify or distinguish such an amp.
> You hadn't asked. Are you looking for another amplifier? What are the requirements? No subjectivist has told you what to buy, either.I am going to be looking ofr another amp eventually. my requirements are that it can drive my Sound lab A3s to their maximum safe SPL and that they sound the best to my ears of any amp out there. The first part can be figured out by specs if the specs are correct. the second part will require that i sit a nd listen and make a subjective choice
His thread title is a general question about the meaning of 'well designed amplififer' but it turns out he really wants explicition of Peter Aczel's criteria for a well designed amplifier. And I have all ready pointed out that the proper person to ask would be Peter Aczel himself, as they are his opinions. Our answers to that would be irrelevant.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,It's becoming increasinly obvious that that you don't wish to discuss anything audio here and will do anything but side step and complicate things under the guise of "changing grounds!" Otherwise you might have to actually explain what you believe when you cut and paste opinions from Real JJ, Klaus, Aczel and others and claim these as your beliefs.
The Subject was: - What Constitues A "Properly Designed" Amp? -
But the topic was further amplfied in the actual post. I wanted to know what people here, who believe this trash Aczel espouses think constitues 1-5 below. Obviously if anyone here is in agreement with this bogus hypothesis they should know why they agree so once again you're wrong Pat and their answers to that would be relevant.
I then even offered a hypothesis I thought was a lot closer to what might actually be the truth "IF" one believes Aczel's criteria is correct.
Have a nice day...
I know it seems strange to you, but listing Peter Aczel's criteria did not "amplify" the original general question, they asked about a particular version.As for being clear, I simply point out that no one, including those more subjectivist in inclination, understood the original post as you seem to understand it. Your intent does not seem to have been clear to anyone.
You seem more interested in defending your original post than in clarifying what you wanted or inreading the replies to the questions you actually posed.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Only the LFO's here pretended not to understand. Can't say I blame them Aczel's assinine assessments won't hold and drop of water under peer studied reviews. So now all the LFO who whined when I called Aczel's comments dogma are running and ducking. Now it's just one man's flawed opinion. Now we get to see the LFO for what they really are i.e. very vocal people who simply want to argue with subjectivists and cannot when called to the carpet defend their beliefs.
Analog Scotts excellent rewording of my posts so the LFO could even understand it was enough evidence that subjectivists and probably rational objectivists understood the questions raised and knew Aczel's dogma wasn't worthy of defending....
By the way, I see you still have absolutely ZERO to add to this topic. What a surprise. Just more excuses of why you ask the obvious to be explained. Grow up and get a life and a real audio system.
I'll try to clarify the question I believe he is trying to ask. That being what are the thresholds of all measurable distortions for an amp which is perfectly audibly transparent driving any real world speaker load within it's rated power output? IOW an amp with no sound of it's own.
Analog,That's correct. Based on the criteria Aczel raised and his followers so vocally support here. I wanted to know when thresholds of high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion and low floor noise have been reached for an amp to be perfectly audibly transparent and hence have no sound of it's own.
It's so easy to make this claim and yet have absolutely NO figures to back them up. I guess peer reviewed published studies must ONLY apply to things subjectivists believe. Otherwise where is the peer reviewed published studies that support these beliefs?
Have a nice day...
"the criteria Aczel raised and his followers so vocally support here"Hah! I knew it! You are falsely trying to foist Aczel's formulations on to us!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
a
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: