|
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 Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 19, 2007 at 12:10:31:
These are not two different beliefs, simply two different definitions.One is indicated by the image of a straight wire with gain, that the amplified signal is so very similar to the input signal that no difference can be heard.
The other is that the final result should sound like the real thing, and it really does take more to do that at home than a mere amplifier and a stereo system.
TG54
"Finally for Pat D who seems to need the blatantly obvious explained to him, when listening to amps it is required that a source, wires and speakers be used. I cannot believe anyone needs to be told this, but sadly Pat D does, or else he'll comment on how can an amp make a sound by itself!"Well, why not just say that? Attributing pyschoacoustic accuracy to a mere power amplifier just confuses communication. The recording, the speakers, the room acoustics, and signal processing are more critical than which amplifier is used, as long as the amplifier is suitable.
I have linked to an article by Wes Philips on a system worked up by jj when he was with AT & T.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
Actually PatD, I would more or less agree with you that they are two different definitions. The question is, "What should we be striving for, technical accuracy or psychoacoustical accuracy??""One is indicated by the image of a straight wire with gain, that the amplified signal is so very similar to the input signal that no difference can be heard.
The other is that the final result should sound like the real thing, and it really does take more to do that at home than a mere amplifier and a stereo system."
I wouldn`t really agree with this though because the image of a straight wire with gain is of course technical accuracy...as envisioned by engineers. What is not accounted for is the METHOD used to achieve such specs and the AUDIBILITY consequences of these methods. The goal should be psychoacoustical accuracy because after all we are not oscilloscopes. If this can be achieved with technical accuracy, great! If not, then it is clear the process of achieving low distortion is more important than the final result (in terms of absolute amount).
...technical vs psychoacoustic - only relative accuracy between two amplifiers.There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier, so either way there are trade-offs.
So which psychoacoustic parameters are most important to YOU?
And which measurements will best correlate with the amplifier's actual musical performance to reflect THOSE parameters?
I personally think sound reproduction most-faithful to the signal is a lot closer to the "psychoacoustic ideal" than a lot of "technical" people would like to believe..... I'm not talking about artificial "bloom", signal enhancements, or whatever. I'm talking "straight-wire-with-gain"....A system that sounds analytical IMO is *not* doing a good job in sound reproduction, even though some might consider this "accurate." When we get very close go faithful reproduction, the "technical" and "psychoacoustical" means approaches identical ends.
"When we get very close go faithful reproduction, the "technical" and "psychoacoustical" means approaches identical ends."This can happen. Apparently, if you play back the music in a concert hall, reproduced music can sometimes sound a lot like the real thing.
But most of our home listening rooms are not acoustically much like concert halls. If you brought the performers home and they played for you, THEY would not sound much like they do in a concert hall, either. In the introductory remarks to Flanders and Swann's "A Song of Reproduction," Michael Flanders remarked, "Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than having an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room: but *they* seem to like it and it's about them that we've written this next song."
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
part of the "signal processing" of the system?I won't bother asking what a "suitable amp" is. ;)
Tube amplifiers may indeed change the frequency response significantly.But no, ordinarily, one does not include amplifiers under the signal processing category. Signal processors usually are considered to be such things as tone controls, equalizers, digital time and amplitude processors, and surround sound processors.
In this context, a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...if you are going to determine the accuracy of an amplifier by measurements, then tell me this:You have two amplifiers -
One measures 3% distortion at 1000Hz.
The other measures 5% distortion at 100Hz.Which is the more accurate amplifier (both are well-designed, whatever that means)?
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> Insufficient data.>...and what more data do you need to determine amplifier accuracy?
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...a hypothetical situation - which is the more accurate of the two according to measurements.So make it 0.5% (@100Hz) and 0.3% (@1000Hz) distortion - which one?
And for much the same reason: you would have to show the distortion spectrum and assess it for audibility.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...amplifier measurements alone don't tell you much about sound quality.
Nope. All this means is that THD isn't weighted for audibility.On the other hand, some magazines (Soundstage, Stereophile) give distortion graphs showing the different components.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
z
rw
mkuller when you asked Pat D, ...and what more data do you need to determine amplifier accuracy? Did you mean besides Pat D's knowing what either Real JJ, Klaus, Dan Banquer, Aczel or whatever other objectivist Pat D happens to be following at the time, believes the correct answer is?Thetubeguy1954
...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers.A totally unexpected direct answer to a question! I am honored.
Hi E-Stat,I too am shocked by such a straight forward answer. Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine! :^ D
I knew Pat D would come around in time...
TG54
"Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers."You'd be lying if you did. Your remark totally ignores the context.
TG54
"My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine!"But is it well-designed? And is it accurate?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
First, I only had to be concerned about "well designed". Now I gotta worry about "suitable" and "accurate", too???? :)
You guys have got to love this one! E-Stat said to Pat D "I won't bother asking what a "suitable amp" is. ;)" In this post:http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32064.html
Pat D answered by stating: Tube amplifiers may indeed change the frequency response significantly. But no, ordinarily, one does not include amplifiers under the signal processing category. Signal processors usually are considered to be such things as tone controls, equalizers, digital time and amplitude processors, and surround sound processors. In this context, a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. As seen in this post here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32065.html
So I responded by stating: I too am shocked by such a straight forward answer. Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine! :^D I knew Pat D would come around in time... Which can be seen in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32085.html
How did Pat D respond to that? Well first by claiming I'd be lying if I did state that because my remark totally ignores the context. Then knowing full well he put his foot in his mouth for the umpteenth time Pat D goes further and asks me about the Mastersound 1) But is it well-designed? And 2) Is it accurate? As seen here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32089.html
I invite everyone to read the entire posts I've provided links to, to see if anyone but this lunatic fringe objectivist believes I'm quoting out of context. As far as I can see and my co-worker who read the post at my request, it is quite certainly in context of what was said.
Now for Pat D if you'll give me a straight forward answer as to what constitutes a "well-designed" amp and what an accurate amp is to you I'll be able to answer those questions, but as it stands you don't provide sufficient enough data for me to do so.
Nice to see you ducking and dodging like the Pat D we all know you are. I just knew your "supposedly" straight forward response had all sorts of conditions and catches attached to it. But that's just typical Pat D, so I'm not surprised.
Thetubeguy1954
Your amp will drive speaker--won't clip severely. mess up the music. It affects the sound less than the recordings and room acoustics and in all probability, less than the speakers do.According to the list of criteria you have cribbed from Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic, your amp probably is not particularly accurate nor well-designed. It probably doesn't do have some of the things he wants in an amp (i.e., low output impedance, flat FR into most speaker loads, ability to handle low impedance loads).
Since your amp seems to work well in your system, you no doubt would regard your system as accurate and the ampwell-designed. (It evidently has noise low enough noise and distortion and is reliable, etc. You'll have to make up your own criteria.)
As I and others have pointed out, "well-designed" doesn't mean exactly the same in every context. The same is true of other words. You appear to think otherwise. You seem to think that when people speak of a well-designed amplifier, they should all have the same thing in mind. You seem to think there is a right set of criteria for that and that all others are wrong.
Well-designed----for what?
Accurate----compared to what standard?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,You say a lot but directly avoid the 2 questions I specifically asked you, i.e what does well designed mean to YOU (and for added clarification) in the context of this discussion and what is accurate to YOU in the context of this discussion.
Those are 2 very simple and straight forward question, if you really make up your own mind as you claim and which I don't believe, they should be very simple questions to answer...
I'm amazed that you are bringing up Aczel once again when just a couple of days ago you were proclaiming those were his opinions not yours! Yet here you are stating: According to the list of criteria you have cribbed from Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic, your amp probably is not particularly accurate nor well-designed.
Pat stop worrying about what you think I believe, stop worrying about how my amps fits into Aczel's misguided opinion and answer the two questions I asked you or at least admit you cannot!
Changing the question does not constitute clarification.BTW, it is you who have whined about Peter Aczel's list of characteristics for an accurate, well-designed amp. His definition obviously bothers you a great deal as you have brought it up several times. However, I have in the past pointed out that you have utterly failed to prove him wrong. But I have never said I agree with Peter Aczel on this, and you incorrectly try to foist his opinions on to me.
Anyway, I have pointed out that one definition of amplifier accuracy is that it amplifies the signal without otherwise adding or detracting from it in an audibly significant way.
You have proposed that accurate equipment should sound like the real thing. Unfortunately, you verbally attribute this to your amplifier while you really mean it is the system which should do this. Your silly way of stating it needs correction.
Both (as corrected) seem to me to be sensible definitions (as corrected), and I may add, they are not in conflict with each other. I see no sense in calling them 'mine' as I did not invent them.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,Why can't you act like an intelligent adult at least once. You started this after I said: "My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine!" By asking me 1) But is it well-designed? And 2) is it accurate? As is seen in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32089.html
I then asked you to define what "well-designed" and "accurate" is to you, BEFORE I answered your questions. Then knowing you to be the slippery snake you are and how you almost always claim everythings "out of context" I decided to clarify or amplify my original question with "In the conext of this thread."
Now if you're too damn stupid to follow that or to understand that everyone knows without saying, NO audio component can make a sound unless it's part of a system, yet each part of that system has it's own unique voice or sound, as witnessed, by changing preamps, amps, wires, CD players etc., then I'm sorry I don't know how to dumb down the conversation so I can talk with someone who cannot understand that simple concept.
But I forgot I just read another of your posts and now realize I want an audio system that sounds as close to live unamplified music as I can achieve and you prefer to follow other audio goals and preferences than that. So we really have nothing to say to each other as our goals are clearly different...
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32230.html
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: