Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Mark Seaton]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but saw these last few points wanted to add a few comments...

Then I must believe that there is a measured manufacturing specification that defines the differences. It is not reasonable to believe that Krell, Levinson and Spectral voice each amp by hand. And of course this raises more questions: what is subjective/what is high fidelity? If three top amps sound (and measure) very noticably different, unless they're just off by exactly the same % in different directions, by definition there is going to be a hierarchy of "right." This, frankly, is probably why manufacturers are reluctant to publish specifications for the things that distinguish them, because they are distinguishing themselves by deviating from accuracy. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it pleases listeners. Using FR as a simple example, if Spectral (I'm making this up, Spectral fans) has a bit of extra juice in the upper mids, they may have found their market with a sound that sets them apart. That doesn't mean they want their competitors looking more "accurate."

What I still struggle with is my simple example above. Assuming that Krell, Levinson and Spectral all have more than enough power and the appropriate output impedance to drive the load -- there's good driver control, good dynamics, plenty of headroom, no clipping -- most "unsubtle" differences should be in FR. And of course there is no "juice" as referred to above, in a Spectral, there is only volume across the frequency response range. These differences should show up. Not in narrow, manufacturer-serving marketing specs, but in good measurements. Surely some pub has measured well? We should be able to point to what you hear. And if we can't, we should, frankly, question it.

Tim

Wrong. Read the reviews with the measurements. They are all flat.

Most of the measurements posted for amplifiers are into ideal loads, and many like to dismiss small variations when actually measured into a real or simulated loudspeaker load. Now remember that the complex impedance of a loudspeaker has a small to not-so-small degree of dynamic change. My curiosity was piqued when I was calibrating a system and we swapped in a new amp for the center channel which arrived later in the day of the calibration. The original was a Krell KAV series amp bridged. I had a measurement right before we swapped it out for a Bryston 28BSST. The TEF-25 measurement is extremely consistent when you repeat measurements. I measured the center channel with the Krell twice. We then swapped in the Bryston, not moving the mic or speaker. Took a measurement and adjusted the gain. The resulting curves differed in a small, but potentially audible amount. A broad band HF difference of 0.3dB over at least 1.5 octaves was clearly visible.

I can't know if a very long balanced cable run and the interaction with upstream components played any role, say above 6-10kHz, but the measured response was most certainly different after the swap. While the 0.3dB difference is not huge by any means, the wider the bandwidth, the more this can be audible. This was also just a comparison with one speaker. Some "hi-fi" speakers are quite cavalier in what they assume amplifiers to be able to drive, and I expect the differences would increase accordingly.

Having met a handful of electronics designers, I suspect more of the "family voicing" comes from similar design approaches and priorities which lead to similar interactions and priorities. I know that to be quite true in loudspeaker design where we have the opposite problem of easily finding a plethora of differing measurements, yet difficulty in straight forward correlation to what is heard.

[jkeny]

Mark, good to see a real designer who can give real experiences here rather than armchair experts who seem to think they know what real designers do!
Thanks for setting the record straight! The real world does not operate along the absolutes that are being talked about in this thread!

[rbbert]

As I posted previously, it would be good to see some comparison testing of amps playing complex signals (like music, at least) into real world loads (such as Mark describes) to get a better idea of what measurements might correlate better with amplifier sound.

Despite often posted (and printed) comments about a specific amplifier's "sound", it's much more likely that it is a speaker/cable/amplifier combination that has a specific "sound", and changing any of the three will change that "sound". In fact, conscientious reviewers are usually aware of that and make specific comments about their findings when making changes of that type.

[Gregadd]

Not bad but the "neurological" portion is clumsy and simplistic. Note, however, the use of the word "induced." In other words, it does not exist as a stimulus but is a percept induced by a range of stimuli. The induced pain is real regardless of the stimulus.

No offense Kal but this subject is quickly becoming a "noxious stimulus." Smile

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mark, good to see a real designer who can give real experiences here rather than armchair experts who seem to think they know what real designers do!
Thanks for setting the record straight! The real world does not operate along the absolutes that are being talked about in this thread!

I don't think Mark set straight the record you have in mind, John. The absolutes in the later half of this thread are between those who say two components can measure exactly (apologies to mep) the same and sound completely different, and those who say that is exaggeration and would make it all but impossible to produce a consistent product.

In Mark's example, the difference -- 0.3 dB -- is extremely subtle, and he did, in fact, measure it. So rather than "two components can measure the same and sound different," a more accurate Audiophile core value, based on John's anecdote, would be two components can measure slightly differently and sound slightly different.

I have no argument with that; my argument is, and always has been with the overblown, hyperbolic absolutes.

Tim

[Robh3606]

In fact, conscientious reviewers are usually aware of that and make specific comments about their findings when making changes of that type.

Many do list a comprehensive list of review equipment.

In Mark's example, the difference -- 0.3 dB -- is extremely subtle, and he did, in fact, measure it.

That does make sense would like to see an impedance curve on the speaker in question.

Rob

[jkeny]

OK, Tim, you have used the last 5 or 6 pages to complain about this hyberbole - that's hyberbole in itself, don't you think?

[Gregadd]

Headphones, playing binaural, will blow your mind, they bring you to the recording event vs bringing the recording event to you as in convetional stereo. Folks dont know what depth or height is until they hear real binaural over headphones

Can you send me a wav.file

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, Tim, you have used the last 5 or 6 pages to complain about this hyberbole - that's hyberbole in itself, don't you think?

I'm a hyperbolic opponent of hyperbole.

Tim

[jkeny]

I'm a hyperbolic opponent of hyperbole.

Tim

The man doth protest too much!