Better than Live??

[andromedaaudio]

Maybe they choose not to expose themselves , because the technical story behind it is very thin

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Unhappily your comment about technicalities is as vague as usual. "Enough detail" ,"That depends", "Plenty" can but do not do, and as usual the final allusion to sighted sessions.

The idea that just because visually or physically it looks simple it should be much easier to demonstrate is IMHO wrong. Cables interact with amplifiers and speakers at a very a low electrical level. A cable does not have a sound - you have to master and understand the whole process to debate the reasons of cables sounding different.

I appreciate some healthy skepticism. But is the high-end field the people who really know some of the why's and details choose not to expose themselves in technical debates. Should we punish them, refusing to buy their products, depriving us of fantastic sound reproduction and of such an enjoyable hobby?

I think you should ask the people who are designing this stuff, micro. If it was half the mysterious black art you make it out to be, there would be no product consistency, even within the same model, much less a "sound" for a brand. Components, speakers and cables are not listened to individually in the manufacturing process then tweaked to some broad, organic target, they are built to specifications and, evidently miraculously, achieve a pretty specific target sound from one piece to the next. This means that consistent sound is predicted by the specifications the components are built to, and that means it can be measured. It can't mean anything less than that. Go ask the designers. I don't think they'll get a whole lot more specific than I did, but I'm pretty certain they're not going to tell you that they achieve their sound by ear, one component at a time.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I think you should ask the people who are designing this stuff, micro. If it was half the mysterious black art you make it out to be, there would be no product consistency, even within the same model, much less a "sound" for a brand. Components, speakers and cables are not listened to individually in the manufacturing process then tweaked to some broad, organic target, they are built to specifications and, evidently miraculously, achieve a pretty specific target sound from one piece to the next. This means that sound can be predicted. And that means it can be measured. It can't mean anything less than that. Go ask the designers. I don't think they'll get a whole lot more specific than I did, but I'm pretty certain they're not going to tell you that they achieve their sound by ear, one component at a time.

Tim

Tim,

I have asked several or them and entertained talks with them, and I have read a lot from their interviews and opinions, most of the time reading between the lines. There is a wide gap between being understandable and becoming scientific and prepared to face debate.

For manufacturers or me audio design it is not a mysterious black art, it seems to be for you, as this knowledge is not systematic and public, and can not be backed by widely accepted measurements. But I recognize that for me almost of all is mysterious - I can not correlate measurements with sound quality. Can you?

Any way I appreciate now that you recognize the existence of a typical "sound" for a brand, even between excellent measuring electronics - some people say they all sound almost the same.

BTW, we both went through these questions sometime ago, no need to re-write it all:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7457-Objectivist-or-Subjectivist-Give-Me-a-Break&p=126828&viewfull=1#post126828

 

[microstrip]

Maybe they choose not to expose themselves , because the technical story behind it is very thin

Andromedaaudio,
Is this your opinion, or just some speculation?

 

[mep]

Tim-I agree with Micro that you are oversimplifying amplifier design and the sound of those designs. I know of no man who can look at a good set of specifications/test results from an amplifier and predict how that amplifier will actually sound unless there are gross aberrations in its measured performance. Two amplifiers from two different manufacturers which have similar measured performance probably won't sound similar unless you subscribe to the "all amplifiers sound the same" theory. And while I have always stated that it is my personal belief that the actual quality of the design is more important sound quality wise than the parts its built with, there is no doubt that the parts used to build a given design contribute to the end sound.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm really not trying to oversimplify anything guys, but the question is pretty simple, and I don't think you've got a good answer:


Without predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements, and production specifications derived from those measurements, how can an audio component designer/manufacturer create a "sound" that is repeatable from one component to the next, even of the same model?

Actually, that is a fairly complex question, but the answer, I think, is bone-simple: "He can't."

So we've established, not only that it can be measured, but that it has been measured.

Tim

 

[mep]

Not really Tim. Give me a schematic, and I can build you a consistent sounding amp as long as I can batch a bunch of the parts together so that I can build a run of amps with *identical* parts.

 

[microstrip]

I'm really not trying to oversimplify anything guys, but the question is pretty simple, and I don't think you've got a good answer:


Without predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements, and production specifications derived from those measurements, how can an audio component designer/manufacturer create a "sound" that is repeatable from one component to the next, even of the same model?

Actually, that is a fairly complex question, but the answer, I think, is bone-simple: "He can't."

So we've established, not only that it can be measured, but that it has been measured.

Tim

You are moving from the main question. Once you have a design, you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements that enable you to control quality if you keep some rigid manufacturing rules - e.g. you do not change the suppliers or use equivalent products. But some manufacturers have had problems just because they had to change a component and although they measure the same they sounded different.

This subject was addressed by Bret d'Agostino in WBF, and by Dieter Burmester in his company site (advanced google is really fantastic in these moments. )
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8050-Components-Specifications-use-and-the-Truth&p=138837&viewfull=1#post138837
"Now when I listen to an audio system, I would not be able to say that a particular company’s amplifier had more distortion than mine did. Unless the design topology was more or less directly proportional to mine, the interpretation of the specifications is not apples to apples. So comparing a set of specs between a 100watt tube amp and a 100watt SS Amp will tell you virtually nothing about what you are going to hear unless a spec is wildly out of whack. "

Manufacturers use measurements in their development - we all know about it. But, sorry, you have not established anything! Unhappily, otherwise you (and WBF) would become famous - the person who established the absolute correlation between measured specifications and sound quality. No more need to build prototypes and listen - just using the simulators to create the specification list - these things are very accurate nowadays.

 

[NorthStar]

I'm really not trying to oversimplify anything guys, but the question is pretty simple, and I don't think you've got a good answer:


Without predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements, and production specifications derived from those measurements, how can an audio component designer/manufacturer create a "sound" that is repeatable from one component to the next, even of the same model?

Actually, that is a fairly complex question, but the answer, I think, is bone-simple: "He can't."

So we've established, not only that it can be measured, but that it has been measured.

Tim

Tim, you are 100% correct here.

Even the exact same two amplifiers from the same manufacturer won't measure and sound exactly the same.
Because there is no exactly the same parts inside with zero tolerance difference. We simply live in an imperfect world for that.

It's the same with a live performance as yourself well know this; it never can be replicated exactly the same.
...There are simply too many variables (human) for this.

Electronics are even more unreliable.

_______________

* To no one in particular: If we want to talk real science here, might as well come fully equipped.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You are moving from the main question. Once you have a design, you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements that enable you to control quality if you keep some rigid manufacturing rules - e.g. you do not change the suppliers or use equivalent products. But some manufacturers have had problems just because they had to change a component and although they measure the same they sounded different.

This subject was addressed by Bret d'Agostino in WBF, and by Dieter Burmester in his company site (advanced google is really fantastic in these moments. )
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8050-Components-Specifications-use-and-the-Truth&p=138837&viewfull=1#post138837
"Now when I listen to an audio system, I would not be able to say that a particular company’s amplifier had more distortion than mine did. Unless the design topology was more or less directly proportional to mine, the interpretation of the specifications is not apples to apples. So comparing a set of specs between a 100watt tube amp and a 100watt SS Amp will tell you virtually nothing about what you are going to hear unless a spec is wildly out of whack. "

Manufacturers use measurements in their development - we all know about it. But, sorry, you have not established anything! Unhappily, otherwise you (and WBF) would become famous - the person who established the absolute correlation between measured specifications and sound quality. No more need to build prototypes and listen - just using the simulators to create the specification list - these things are very accurate nowadays.

Well, this is yet another live vs Memorex thread, so we long ago moved from the main question, but we have made a breakthrough:

you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements

, you said.

Of course you can! This is what I've been saying all along! These measurements and production specifications not only predict how the component will sound, they control the consistency of that sound in manufacturing. We agree. So, get those measurements, those specs instead of the ones published by the marketing departments, and what would prevent the knowledgable (say a reviewing team similar to the old days at Stereo Review) from not only predicting sound from measurements, as we've agreed that manufacturers do, but comparing those measurements to predict differences and similarities in sound from one component to another?

The answer, of course, is the lack of the will or the resources to take the kinds of measurements that manufacturers use all the time to produce consistent products. Mostly will and skill, I suspect. But it can be measured and predicted from those measurements. Without such measurements, consistent-sounding products would be all but impossible to produce.

By the way, while I appreciate the thought, I expect no fame from this breakthrough. I expect this is common knowledge to all engineers who do not believe in magic.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Even the exact same two amplifiers from the same manufacturer won't measure and sound exactly the same.
Because there is no exactly the same parts inside with zero tolerance difference. We simply live in an imperfect world for that.

You're correct that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. But tolerances within audible limits? Tolerances close enough to predict the performance of a part and how it will sound in a component? Without this, we would have chaos. Not only would a Krell sound noticeably, audibly, obviously different from a Levinson, no 2 Krells would sound alike. It would be impossible for audio manufacturers to create a consistent product.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

But that's exactly what's the beauty in our world; everything's different, sounds different, smells different, ...
If there was another exactly same 'me' living around, then that would be true real chaos.
* You believe in cloning Tim?

I never mentioned "within audible limits" prior, but was certainly referring to 'accuracy', from very minute precision measurements.

Less than total perfection will always be a subject of conversation, in a world where boredom is the ultimate enemy.

 

[mep]

You're correct that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. But tolerances within audible limits? Tolerances close enough to predict the performance of a part and how it will sound in a component? Without this, we would have chaos. Not only would a Krell sound noticeably, audibly, obviously different from a Levinson, no 2 Krells would sound alike. It would be impossible for audio manufacturers to create a consistent product.

Tim

Tim-Is the quote above from me from some time ago? It sounds like something I said awhile back.

 

[andromedaaudio]

just my normal cable opinion , nothing new

Andromedaaudio,
Is this your opinion, or just some speculation?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But that's exactly what's the beauty in our world; everything's different, sounds different, smells different, ...
If there was another exactly same 'me' living around, then that would be true real chaos.
* You believe in cloning Tim?

I never mentioned "within audible limits" prior, but was certainly referring to 'accuracy', from very minute precision measurements.

Less than total perfection will always be a subject of conversation, in a world where boredom is the ultimate enemy.

I do believe in cloning, Bob. Looks like magic; but it's science.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-Is the quote above from me from some time ago? It sounds like something I said awhile back.

No, just me talking today.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) The answer, of course, is the lack of the will or the resources to take the kinds of measurements that manufacturers use all the time to produce consistent products. Mostly will and skill, I suspect. But it can be measured and predicted from those measurements. Without such measurements, consistent-sounding products would be all but impossible to produce.

By the way, while I appreciate the thought, I expect no fame from this breakthrough. I expect this is common knowledge to all engineers who do not believe in magic.

Tim

OK, we now know you have suspects. I prefer to use information coming from professionals that I can quote. BTW, no one except you is speaking about magic - I refer to expertise and knowledge that can not be directly supported by measurements correlated with sound quality. But you love ambiguous and vague references.

BTW, any one involved in manufacturing processes will remember that during the process most manufacturers take signatures (measurements) at critical points to identify possible faults. Most of the time these signatures have no connection with the normal operation of the system - they are optimized to identify production faults and check consistency. Life of a manufacturer is much complicated than consumers think.

 

[microstrip]

(...) the quote from micro about a ss and tube amp with similiar specs and not sounding the same is not an apples to apples comparison as any one familiar with audio design knows. But, can one make the two sound indestinguisable from one another....use an OTL type tube amp, and yes of course. Our ears are great but they aint that great.

getting back to cables, do folks really believe we are advancing the cable art year on year? really? for audio frequencies? do cable sound different, yes, given enough differences in their design of course, but the same can be said of any audio components.

(...)

Tom,

As usual, engineers and people familiar with audio design knows all and can do everything ... Even an OTL that sounds like Mep Krell KSA250.

Before addressing you cable question, can you quantify with exact numbers what you mean by "given enough differences in their design"?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, we now know you have suspects. I prefer to use information coming from professionals that I can quote. BTW, no one except you is speaking about magic - I refer to expertise and knowledge that can not be directly supported by measurements correlated with sound quality. But you love ambiguous and vague references.

BTW, any one involved in manufacturing processes will remember that during the process most manufacturers take signatures (measurements) at critical points to identify possible faults. Most of the time these signatures have no connection with the normal operation of the system - they are optimized to identify production faults and check consistency. Life of a manufacturer is much complicated than consumers think.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. In this case, I'm talking about your own references:

you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements that enable you to control quality

...which strike me as neither vague nor ambiguous. You are saying the quality of sound is measured, production specifications are created from those measurements, and those specifications are applied in manufacturing to control the consistency of the sound of the product. I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your statement; it was straightforward and clear and I'm pretty sure I understood it. The only thing that remains hard to understand is how you can believe this and continue to hold that the quality of sound cannot be captured by and predicted with measurements.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

I do believe in cloning, Bob. Looks like magic; but it's science.

Tim

What I meant was if it's good. ...If it's good to be cloning other people?

...And eventually we'll be able to replicate the same live experience (performance).
...But at a different time, and at a different place too.

Better than Live? No, different.