advertisement


Naim = bright?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul R said:
Pig, look up 'impulse response' to see why your objection and analogy are not very valuable.
Click to expand...

It doesn't show anything of the kind. Forget the analogy, that was merely an illustration of making two plus two equal six. Which is how the 'tap test' is being used here.

So what are you talking about? Are you saying that hitting an amplifier is an impulse response test? Yeah, and? Are you saying that because the 'tap test' is a valid type of test for some types of issue you can then extrapolate any unrelated conclusion you like out of it?
 
sergeauckland said:
Transparency is generally recognised, at least amongst those who I've dealt with professionally in audio, as passing, or being able to pass a straight-wire bypass test. I agree it does not mean zero distortion, and if one wants to be pedantic (or precise, depending on your viewpoint) it should be qualified as "audibly" transparent. However, in this thread, I don't think there is any doubt as to the meaning of "transparent" in this context.
Click to expand...

From someone who can't work out what people mean when they say something is 'better' than something else because you claim to take everything literally.
 
Never ceases to amaze how those who have the least knowledge about hifi have the most opinions on it... Empty vessels make the most noise they say!
It's a good thing that the opinion of medical doctors are treated with rather more gravitas than that of electronic engineers... I can just imagine it "I don't believe a word of what that consultant says about my so called cancer! Think I'll see what Dave the plumber thinks down at The Kings Arms" :D
 
Brian said:
Exacty what i think when i see your waffle. Strange how you're suddenly not as literal as you make out, eh.
Click to expand...

Brian,

The moment I detect one shred of technical knowledge or appreciation in your posts, I will start paying attention. Until then, "whatever" pretty much sums up how I view what you post.

It would seem that the feeling is mutual, so shall we just leave it there?

S.
 
Arkless Repairs said:
Never ceases to amaze how those who have the least knowledge about hifi have the most opinions on it... Empty vessels make the most noise they say!
Click to expand...

Yip, thanks for the insults. At least you're not at all predictable eh? If you can't answer your opponent destroy his credibility? Or, as you're the expert, why not answer the questions?

Please explain how tapping a component or amplifier with your finger and observing that it causes no signal to be emitted (That's exactly what you said you did) proves that multi-frequency resonance does not in any way effect the operation of the component or amplifier during operation?

And if electronic engineers like you are the ones who know the score, the rest of us are dweebs, what about the electronic engineers who take resonance seriously enough to build countermeasures into their products? I assume they are idiots too? I just want to check how you define a credible opinion?
 
No I don't think Naim gear is bright.

If anything the highs are rolled off - certainly less sibilance in my system when I switched from Musical Fidelity Clic to Naim NDX.
 
GTM said:
err no.. actually all you've proved there is that all 21 amplifiers are audibly indistinguishable from each other. Transparency means something completely different from this. At least technically it does. Technically it means introduces zero.. as in absolutely no distortion.. to this extent no amplifier is transparent. At best they are only audibly indistinguishable from each other. So if you want to continue using the term transparent then qualify it by stating "audibly transparent". So the scenario above doesn't demonstrate transparency beyond a reasonable doubt, only that they are all audibly indistinguishable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You very conveniently left out the qualifier about all 21 being competently designed.

If 21 amplifiers using different topology, from different manufacturers and at different price points are indistinguishable under blind conditions, transparency so far as it relates to the real world has been shown beyond reasonable doubt.

Amplifiers do not require zero distortion to be transparent - they need to keep all distortions below audibility, which brings us neatly back to competency.
 
sergeauckland said:
Brian,

The moment I detect one shred of technical knowledge or appreciation in your posts, I will start paying attention. Until then, "whatever" pretty much sums up how I view what you post.

It would seem that the feeling is mutual, so shall we just leave it there?

S.
Click to expand...
Technical knowledge? About how music sounds to individuals?
What technical knowledge are you looking for, Serge?

Can you explain why there is no doubt over the meaning of the word 'transparent', yet you 'claim' to be totally baffled by the meaning of the word 'better'?

Fact is you were caught out by GTM but you can't admit it, so you resorted to waffle. Either that or you're not as literal as you make out, which means you do know what people mean by 'better', which means you're just trolling for some reason.
 
Brian said:
Can you explain why there is no doubt over the meaning of the word 'transparent', yet you 'claim' to be totally baffled by the meaning of the word 'better'?
Click to expand...

I should have though the answers to those points was bloody obvious.

If a piece of equipment is deemed transparent its presence in the signal path can be shown to be sonically undetectable. For example, replace an interconnect with a pre amp and match the gains, and if the presence of the pre amp cannot be detected, it is transparent.

Something either is or isn't transparent. There can be no subjectivity.

Sonically 'better' also needs qualifying criteria, so you can apply the term to technical performance, or as is often the case with audio, liking or disliking distortion or colouration.
 
Dinovector said:
I have tried the tapping test and heard nothing but there most definitely was a difference when we changed stands, even my missus heard it. There must be more to this than you are testing for
Click to expand...

Yes, they call it expectatio........

Never mind, look it up ;)
 
At my home with my speakers (SBLs) the Naim's sound is heavy with great presence. With The new Leonard Cohen disk, the system produces such a heavy sound that it makes me fear that the floor will fall down (I'm at the third floor).
Since I had the Allae and then the SBL - the sound is heavy. And great!

Arye
 
Robert said:
I should have though the answers to those points was bloody obvious.

If a piece of equipment is deemed transparent its presence in the signal path can be shown to be sonically undetectable. For example, replace an interconnect with a pre amp and match the gains, and if the presence of the pre amp cannot be detected, it is transparent.

Something either is or isn't transparent. There can be no subjectivity.

Sonically 'better' also needs qualifying criteria, so you can apply the term to technical performance, or as is often the case with audio, liking or disliking distortion or colouration.
Click to expand...

Losing it, I see and you don't do context either.

I admit I don't give a toss about your obsession with whatever transparency sounds like.
 
So what are you talking about? Are you saying that hitting an amplifier is an impulse response test? Yeah, and? Are you saying that because the 'tap test' is a valid type of test for some types of issue you can then extrapolate any unrelated conclusion you like out of it?
Click to expand...
You are claiming that your equipment is microphonic, or sensitive to vibration, but at the same time insensitive to vibration. Do you see the conundrum?

The ball is in your court. An impulse test stimulates a system with every frequency, so why is it inappropriate? What is the physical mechanism you are invoking?

Paul
 
Paul R said:
You are claiming that your equipment is microphonic, or sensitive to vibration, but at the same time insensitive to vibration. Do you see the conundrum?
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed anything of the kind. I am saying that tapping an amplifier with your finger and finding that this does not produce and output signal does not prove the amplifier is not microphonic. I haven't made any statement about whether the thing is actually micrphonic or not. I am objecting to the usual sanctimonious derision of subjective observation based on poor logic and reading far too much into very blunt and incomplete testing.

An impulse test stimulates a system with every frequency
Click to expand...

Tapping the thing with your finger stimulates it with every frequency? Is that what you're saying? This just gets better all the time :0)
 
Serge, do you have any idea what the sound pressure levels are inside a speaker? It is everything in a 2 or 3000 cu ft room, compacted into half a cubic foot. Yes, you should be able to hear the differences - not just from microphonics but also because there are all sorts of conductors moving in significant magnetic fields. In many ways the inside of a speaker is the last place you want to put a crossover. And, yes, capacitors of all sorts are microphonic and have natural frequencies. Put a couple of volts across and C and an R connected to a scope and tap the capacitor. You will see movement.

As for the tap test on amps, you do need something metal and solid to give a proper leading edge, but I bet you can measure than too. Remember also that, like the speaker, there are a lot of waves reflecting back and forth without much decay. Personally I have a pet theory that some of the sound of the Naim amps is down to their casework. This would chime (ha, ha) with the Fraim having glass shelves and some weight, putting the impedance in a pretty good place to conduct some of this away (and in, too).
 
Personally I have a pet theory that some of the sound of the Naim amps is down to their casework. This would chime (ha, ha) with the Fraim having glass shelves and some weight, putting the impedance in a pretty good place to conduct some of this away (and in, too).
Click to expand...

Yep, place a CD jewel box or hockey puck (or probably most anything) atop the case of a CDS mk1 or 2 and you get a slight reduction in dynamics but a bit more intelligibility with vocals in complex mixes. I prefer undamped but I could see others preferring something on the case. Again, it's very subtle but audible.
 
Mr Pig said:
I haven't claimed anything of the kind. I am saying that tapping an amplifier with your finger and finding that this does not produce and output signal does not prove the amplifier is not microphonic. I haven't made any statement about whether the thing is actually micrphonic or not. I am objecting to the usual sanctimonious derision of subjective observation based on poor logic and reading far too much into very blunt and incomplete testing.



Tapping the thing with your finger stimulates it with every frequency? Is that what you're saying? This just gets better all the time :0)
Click to expand...

Don't want to seem insulting but look up Fourier Transforms and then come back and argue when you know what you are talking about.... see my earlier post about amateurs arguing with professionals.... Serge knows what he is talking about (although I don't agree with his theory about amplifier transparency... I have designed and built amps with 0.001% THD that sounded downright nasty and never saw the light of day because of that... back to the drawing board!)

The problem is that hifi enthusiasts who have invested lots of money and effort and thought into their systems want to think they can have real influence and effect over the performance of said system.... even though they know nowt about electronics... so instead of learning about the laws of physics and following the procedures used by the people who designed said hifi system, they think that ****ing about with designer shelves, interconnects, mains leads and green pens will have equal and significant effect.... sad really.
Hey, don't hate me TOO much for being blunt and telling it how it is.. I'm an engineer... never claimed to be a diplomat :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top