advertisement


Cyclic debates and moderation Part II

If that is the case I think you may want to re word your website.

Proof of Improvement

If you are considering mods from another company, ask yourself if they provide solid proof of the improvement their work brings you? We do!

• A layer of 'hash' is removed • Lower Intermodulation Distortion
• Mid and top become cleaner and sweeter • Lower Harmonic Distortion
• Greater atmosphere, emotion and dynamics • Lower Noise

These don't seem subtle to me.
 
Far enough, I will remove it. The truth is I think the above improvements are true, but subtle.

...done :)

P.S. Cooky, the website gave the listed subjective impressions, then after that had the line about providing proof. Not the other way around as you've quoted, which makes it sound like my subjective impression is provided as some sort of proof.
 
i_should_coco said:
The braying is a subjective impression. ;)

Most (sensible) people accept it just fine, so repeating it over and over serves only to annoy. No one is gagging anyone, just pointing out that the repitition is becoming dull. Why not contribute something new to he debate? If HiFi is done and dusted in engineering terms, why even discuss it here?




I haven't criticised his subjective impressions, simply asked for evidence to back them up as the seem extraordinary. Surely that's not too much to ask?



Well Rob, I suspect his impressions are correct, because the stock Behringer is a horrible sounding thing to my ears. But it's not backed up by the numbers and received wisdom. So where does that leave us?

Why use such emotive terms to denigrate posters you don't agree with, though?
Click to expand...

Correct, a terrible sounding thing. :rolleyes:
 
Tenson said:
Far enough, I will remove it. The truth is I think the above improvements are true, but subtle.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to just because of some objectivist dogma, you have an honest upstanding business and integrity, like many other traders/designers who really don't deserve to have their businesses and integrity questioned or undermined in the way this absolutist discussion has gone.
 
Tenson said:
There could be other factors I suppose, such as the gain structure of the system. There is also the factor that many people prefer a sound with some harmonic content as being 'more musical'.

If it were me in that situation, I'd want to do a blind and level matched A/B test to confirm there was indeed a detectable difference.
Click to expand...

In all honesty this was before I did any true blind testing since Julian Hirsch did it for me in those days but seriously, the discrepancies were apparent to all involved especially after numerous comparisons trying many different preamps with various sources and speakers in my room and one at our dealership.

Interestingly, at no point did the sound of any of the preamps ever change. Some like the IC-150 were easy to pick out in an informal blind test (guess which one is playing) as it sounded quite worse compared to anything in the shop. The only other preamps at the time that had as large of a signature sound were the Yamaha preamps and the Hafler DH 101 which had just arrived on the scene. Both were extremely hot on top while still sounding different from each other.

This experience combined with a similar one where a newly purchased Marantz 1060 integrated sounded worse than a friend’s ancient, noisy tube amp was enough to make me use my ears for judging the sound of equipment in the future instead of relying on specs.
 
i_should_coco said:
The braying is a subjective impression. ;)

Most (sensible) people accept it just fine, so repeating it over and over serves only to annoy. No one is gagging anyone, just pointing out that the repitition is becoming dull. Why not contribute something new to he debate? If HiFi is done and dusted in engineering terms, why even discuss it here?




I haven't criticised his subjective impressions, simply asked for evidence to back them up as the seem extraordinary. Surely that's not too much to ask?



Well Rob, I suspect his impressions are correct, because the stock Behringer is a horrible sounding thing to my ears. But it's not backed up by the numbers and received wisdom. So where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

It seems we can repeat some things but not others.
If I had a pound for every time been I've been told cables sound different, silver sounds bright, copper sounds warm, Naim sounds pratty, Linn boogies and tubes sound sweeter than SS I'd have retired long ago on good money.

Suggesting someone check their findings against known impediments to reliability shouldn't annoy anyone. There is no gun to the head, don't want to do it then don't.

You've made criticism of him posting his subjective impressions and his response has been rather candid, i.e. he's agreeing with you that in no way should they be considered factual or reliable. It's a refreshing approach form which others could perhaps learn.

As to the numbers in this instance and where it leaves us, well as I said anyone is free to dem a standard unit against a modified one and we would positively encourage them to compare them in a direct level match A/B Perhaps that will give us the answer but we are certainly more than happy for people to do it.

On the sound, the modified unit has been demonstrated at three commercial shows where its ADC/DAC loop performance could be compared to 'direct' amp feed.
It has also been compared blind against a Lavry, Benchmark, Cambridge and Roland dacs with six pfm listeners at the session, and the results were posted here at the time.
In all cases it proved transparent. They all did in fact.

Nothing in that test had THD or IMD in excess of 0.05%.according to the published data or anything I could find in interns of a technical test.
Such a figure is easily met today by the majority of audio electronics on sale and therefore our assumptions are based on evidence.
That in my book constitutes good evidence of the case for transparency, and represents a far more thorough approach to the usual alternatives.

You might disagree in which case go ahead and argue your case.

Why not contribute something new to he debate? If HiFi is done and dusted in engineering terms, why even discuss it here?
Click to expand...

If that's aimed specifically in my direction then the posting history will confirm it to be an absurd remark on both counts.

I've never argued that Hi-Fi is done and dusted (putting words into mouths is catching today), only that certain parts have reached the point were there are no audible gains to be made. Again the forum post history doesn't lie.

I will however suggest that Simon add a rider to his subjective comments on the website emphasising that they are arm.....subjective comments.
<edit - I see that's already sorted>


PS: Tony, sorry to keep mentioning products here but it did get dragged into the discussion up thread.
 
Tony L said:
Ancient noisy tube amps are ace.
Click to expand...

It was quite shocking to find my brand new state of the art transistor amp which had tested as sounding like all other state of the art sold state devices of the day by Hirsch-Houck labs was trounced by a ten year old noisy, 15WPC Heathkit integrated built from a kit. I was devastated that "science" had failed me to be honest.

Before anyone cries foul - I've never heard live music sounding cold, clinical and uninvolving like my 1060 and IC-150 with every piece of music played through them. If that's what you call accurate or transparent, i'll take colored any day of the week.
 
dave said:
This experience combined with a similar one where a newly purchased Marantz 1060 integrated sounded worse than a friend’s ancient, noisy tube amp was enough to make me use my ears for judging the sound of equipment in the future instead of relying on specs.
Click to expand...

Quite right too. There is a branch of thinking in this discussion that would tell you which one to like based on the numbers, and another which wouldn't critique your preference but would want to relate that to the numbers.

They are quite different approaches.

Using just ears alone is rare though.

Before anyone cries foul - I've never heard live music sounding cold, clinical and uninvolving like my 1060 and IC-150 with every piece of music played through them. If that's what you call accurate or transparent, i'll take colored any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Didn't you ever wonder why this was the case?
Perhaps the 1060 had been poorly set up and had audible crossover distortion, which would certainly make it sound cold to some ears. Perhaps it just wasn't very good (it was entry level 1970s IIRC)
You see in that situation, what possible harm is there in playing the two amps back to back in as more controlled way. I don't see why this frightens people for it will either confirm what you initially heard, in which case great, or it might give a very different result. I have seen plenty of examples of the latter situation.
 
Robert said:
It seems we can repeat some things but not others.
If I had a pound for every time been I've been told cables sound different, silver sounds bright, copper sounds warm, Naim sounds pratty, Linn boogies and tubes sound sweeter than SS I'd have retired long ago on good money.

Suggesting someone check their findings against known impediments to reliability shouldn't annoy anyone. There is no gun to the head, don't want to do it then don't.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's the manner in which you and others "suggest". Words like "delusional", "fairies" and sarcasm don't exactly help your cause. Or perhaps accept that once people have told you they don't care, refrain from repeating it over and over. Accept that some people don't want to be saved and move on.

You've made criticism of him posting his subjective impressions and his response has been rather candid, i.e. he's agreeing with you that in no way should they be considered factual or reliable. It's a refreshing approach form which others could perhaps learn.
Click to expand...

So why bother to make them in the absence of evidence? As the numbers don't indicate any audible effect, surely they can only be the work of an over-active imagination or expectation bias?

As to the numbers in this instance and where it leaves us, well as I said anyone is free to dem a standard unit against a modified one and we would positively encourage them to compare them in a direct level match A/B Perhaps that will give us the answer but we are certainly more than happy for people to do it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that should be explicitly stated, instead of the unsubstantiated subjective views, then?


On the sound, the modified unit has been demonstrated at three commercial shows where its ADC/DAC loop performance could be compared to 'direct' amp feed.
It has also been compared blind against a Lavry, Benchmark, Cambridge and Roland dacs with six pfm listeners at the session, and the results were posted here at the time.
In all cases it proved transparent. They all did in fact.

Nothing in that test had THD or IMD in excess of 0.05%.according to the published data or anything I could find in interns of a technical test.
Such a figure is easily met today by the majority of audio electronics on sale and therefore our assumptions are based on evidence.
That in my book constitutes good evidence of the case for transparency, and represents a far more thorough approach to the usual alternatives.

You might disagree in which case go ahead and argue your case.
Click to expand...

So are you saying the standard unit isn't transparent, despite the measurements indicating that it must be?

You appear to misunderstand me for someone who is interested in telling the world how they should judge their hifi. I'm happy with my approach to reproducing music at home. It happens to include both measuring and listening, because for me it's about enjoying music, not about some dogma. In the light of most loudspeakers being so far from hifi, the concept of accurate reproduction at home is laughable, and therefore moot.

If that's aimed specifically in my direction then the posting history will confirm it to be an absurd remark on both counts.

I've never argued that Hi-Fi is done and dusted (putting words into mouths is catching today), only that certain parts have reached the point were there are no audible gains to be made. Again the forum post history doesn't lie.
Click to expand...

"No audible gains" certainly be interpreted as "done and dusted", at least for those areas. So what's to talk about?

I will however suggest that Simon add a rider to his subjective comments on the website emphasising that they are arm.....subjective comments.
Click to expand...

Please add "And therefore to be taken as fiction." :)
 
Rob,

Surely the 1060 or IC-150 would have me stumble upon just one recording that sounded better vs through that ratty tube amp if the numbers told all?

regards,

dave
 
Robert said:
Nothing in that test had THD or IMD in excess of 0.05%.according to the published data or anything I could find in interns of a technical test.
Such a figure is easily met today by the majority of audio electronics on sale and therefore our assumptions are based on evidence.
Click to expand...

I guess the point here is that it's easy enough to build a case that less than a certain amount of distortion is transparent, but far more difficult to show just how much distortion is audible.
 
I mean you can do a test with kit that has say 0.01% IMD and find it inaudible, and therefore other kit with similarly low IMD should also have no audible issues here. However, it doesn't say much about how audible or not 0.1% IMD would be.
 
No, it won't, but established wisdom, based on existing blind tests indicates that *any* kind of distortion below 0.1% is not audible and therefore indicates transparency. Apparently no such, properly conducted, test has ever found otherwise.

There's no evidence that IMD is any more audible than other types.
 
So are you saying that your definition of transparency is different to Serge's. I though his was the one accepted by the industry?

In which case, how should transparency be objectively defined.
 
My understanding, based on what I was taught way back when, was that 0.1% distortion, of whatever sort, is inaudible.

However, IMD, whether low/high frequency or beat-note (two high frequencies) is more easily audible as the effects are non-harmonically related and more easily picked out.

This means that whereas even 1% even harmonic distortion may pass unnoticed, a lower amount of odd harmonic is needed to pass unnoticed, and a lower level still of IMD is needed. However, if the distortion products are below 0.1%, however caused, the effect is inaudible.

This was indeed the conventional wisdom going back some 50 or more years, hence the way in which the Williamson and Leak amplifiers were lauded as being the first with 0.1%
distortion, albeit at mid frequencies and not necessarily at full power. Marketing hype was around even then.

I have not seen any more recent reserach that would cast doubt on these figures still being the limit for audibility.

S.
S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top