Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Gregadd]

No, the one you emphasized would not even be the first one in your own quote.

Tim your response is so eloquent I'm not sure I understand it. If I insulted anyone I certainly did not intend to. My humor does not always come across as intended.

That would "the real goal of a hi-fi is to play music and not test tones."

I'm not sure where you going ,but I agree. We're not children. But we often behave as such.

We've all been hanging around these sites long enough to know exactly what that exceedingly common remark implies, and to fully understand that it is an insult.

I assume you are referring to the term "audiophool." A term I first ecouintered not on this site ,but somewhere else. I am unaware of any official meaning. I do however get the point.

. My goal of course is to make that eceedingly common remark not only less common but non-existent.

 

[Gregadd]

Right, because there's nothing to refute.

I'm sure you've made up your mind. I think the issues are more complex than a simple right or wrong.

Sure, you could use logical fallacies

Something is not necessarily a fallacy just because you disagree with it.

or Paul Ryan-type outright lies

At least we agree Mr. Ryan is a liar. I am not.

and make up an attack on the car specs analogy.

One does have to wonder how a simple test drive would not have revealed the discrepancies,

But your argument that something is wrong because nobody refuted it is "interesting" to say the least.

I never said it is wrong because nobdy refuted it. What I thought I said was the so called subjectist seem to be able to take the criticism leveled in that article without a knee jerk response. If you recall Ms. Goodwin made the point that objectivists seem inflamed by subjectivists. They want desperately to save them from themselves. She OTOH as a subjectivist was not bothered by the the other side.

If I ever need a criminal defense lawyer, you're definitely my guy.

I keep getting the feeling you have some lawyers jokes just dyiong to get out. Thanks for excersing restraint. I hope you never need a criminal defense lawyer. Should you feel yourself in a situation where the commission of a crime appears liklely email me. I'll advise you not to do it, for free. As I heard in a movie once, "There's a thousand ways to get caught. you're lucky if you can cover fifity."

gregadd

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim your response is so eloquent I'm not sure I understand it. If I insulted anyone I certainly did not intend to. My humor does not always come across as intended. I'm not sure where you going ,but I agree. We're not children. But we often behave as such. I assume you are referring to the term "audiophool." A term I first ecouintered not on this ,but somewhere else. I am unaware of any official meaning. I do however get the point.

. My goal of course is to make that eceedingly common remark not only less common but non-existent.

You missed my point altogether. Probably poor communication on my part. Let me attempt to clarify: In the post in which you referred to audiofool as the first insult (and it surely is an insult), "audiofool" was preceded by "the goal of hifi is to play real music, not test tones." That was the first insult, or at least the first one that appeared in your post. It is subtler than audiofool (even children would get that "fool" is an insult), but is an insult nonetheless. And old, shopworn, tired insult. It preceded "audiofool," or at least appeared to in your quote. A minor point, granted, in the on-going battle between....whatever we are....but I crave accuracy, as you know.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Tim I see where I was confused. Neither of the quotes were mine. They each belonged to Tomolex and Don respectively.
Your quest for acuuracy is laudible and does not bother me in the least.
gregadd

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim I see where I was confused. Neither of the quotes were mine. They each belonged to Tomolex and Don respectively.
Your quest for acuuracy is laudible and does not bother me in the least.
gregadd

And I didn't mean to attribute them to you.

Tim

 

[DonH50]

Don,

What do you call "working well within spec"? Is it something measurable or just a magic specification? And the expression "handle a real speaker load" sounds very nice, but how do you also measure it?

Most people try to explain the differences between amplifiers to clipping behavior or current limitation, but I disagree. I think it is still influence of the old school of though that considered that the soft clipping could explain all the differences between SS and tubes sound.

I always calibrate my systems, do not listen loud, use powerful amplifiers (minimum 140W) and have found that most of the sound characteristics of one amplifier keeps stable and unchanged with speakers having 83dB/W or 92dB/W, 4 or 8 ohm, if they do not clip or distort.

I hope you do not consider my post an extreme position.

Nope, not extreme to me. Disclaimer: I tend to write somewhat authoritatively because it is easier than having to qualify every other word. Except in cases of a technical nature where I have hard facts and the math to back them up, my opinions/observations carry no more weight than any others'.

Well within spec for an amplifier, that is meeting the data sheet specs. Again IMO/IME (this thread gives me the need to repeat that time and time again), for listening tests that primarily means well within its power capability (and I do not have a good number for that, sorry; maybe 10 - 20 dB below max output) and load impedance (e.g. a speaker that does not have extremely low impedances -- most amps do OK with higher impedances, though I have not thought about the impact of higher-Z on a tube output transformer where the mismatch might matter more).

Soft clipping will certainly highlight differences in the distortion characteristics, but in my mind (and perhaps that of nobody else) the main differences lie in how the amp interacts with the load (speakers). As to how I measured it, I played test tones whilst the amp was driving several different speakers and measured the distortion across the amp terminals. BTW, and if I remember rightly, IMD was the main player, not THD. I was able to measure and hear more using two-tone testing. We intentionally chose a wide variety of speakers for the testing to emphasize differences; we had already done some experiments and found that differences where minimal (inaudible) for similar speakers and amps. IIRC we used 1 W at 1 kHz as our reference for all speakers when measuring distortion. Please bear in mind this was years ago; I have only recently gotten back into this hobby, and do not have the resources I had then for audio. There was some push back then (late 70's early 80's) for the IHF to define a range of speaker test loads but I do not recall it went anywhere.

It also depends upon the musical content if that is part of the test, since some tunes may emphasize amplifier/speaker interactions more than others. That is one reason using a wide variety of music for listening tests is important.

As I said, or think I did, within a broad range I would not expect great differences. I realize there are those who claim to be able to hear small differences among similar amplifiers at low or moderate volume. IME those differences are very slight if even audible for similar amplifiers driving the same speakers in the same room etc. We were able to replicate some of the Stereo Review results showing most people could not tell amps apart in a blind test when driving a middle-of-the-road speaker system (I think we used Polk for the "average" speaker), but also that mixing up the speakers and amps led to quite a few people being able to pick out differences. However, volume is less important than what the amplifer is putting out; moderate volume means different things to different people, and an electrostat is not going to look like the same load as a planar magnetic, ribbon, or conventional dynamic speaker system. And so forth; again, too many variables.

Not sure I addressed all your concerns, but gotta' get back to work soon... - Don

 

[DonH50]

Don just teasing. I think you have always been a gentleman on this site.You are at least willing to be convinced of an adverse position.
I would make this equation: accurate = good sound. This equation bothers: me accurate =/ good sound. Sean tells us that accuracy =preference. I suppose people prefer good sound. Then we can make this equation. accuracy =prefernce =good sound. Or If acurate then preferred. If preferred then good (sound.)

No worries! IME accuracy does not always equal good sound but it provides a nice starting point from a design perspective. Accuracy is a little slippery for speakers anyway; accurate in what room? Anyway, a lot of people like a little more "boom" in the sound or prefer the treble turned down a little. Less accurate, but better sound for them. I have no problem with that. Don't even start on some of the bad mixes/EQ coming out...

 

[microstrip]

(...) Well within spec for an amplifier, that is meeting the data sheet specs. Again IMO/IME (this thread gives me the need to repeat that time and time again), for listening tests that primarily means well within its power capability (and I do not have a good number for that, sorry; maybe 10 - 20 dB below max output) and load impedance (e.g. a speaker that does not have extremely low impedances -- most amps do OK with higher impedances, though I have not thought about the impact of higher-Z on a tube output transformer where the mismatch might matter more).

Thanks. I find rather disturbing that you refer that an amplifier should be operated 10-20dB below max output power for listening tests - specially because 10-20 dB is a high difference. IMHO one good thing about digital is that maximum peak power is always easy to check, something we did not have with analog.

I see you refer listening experiences carried 20-30 years ago. Looking retrospectively, at that time you had a point - the sound of a Quad 405, a Merdian 105 or an Hafler was much more similar than the Devialet versus the Dartzeel I am referring.

 

[Robh3606]

Thanks. I find rather disturbing that you refer that an amplifier should be operated 10-20dB below max output power for listening tests - specially because 10-20 dB is a high difference. IMHO one good thing about digital is that maximum peak power is always easy to check, something we did not have with analog.

Hello Micro

Why out of curiosity?? How loud do you listen?? I have a 300 WPC amp on 91dB speakers and listen in the upper 80's for my average SPL in my 2 channel rig. Use the headroom for clean peaks. Depending on program any average level above that is going to clip the amp.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

Hello Micro

Why out of curiosity?? How loud do you listen?? I have a 300 WPC amp on 91dB speakers and listen in the upper 80's for my average SPL in my 2 channel rig. Use the headroom for clean peaks. Depending on program any average level above that is going to clip the amp.

Rob

Rob,

This is a thread on objectivity and subjectivity and we are debating aspects related to amplifier sound quality. Unless we are able to quantify the peaks in watts, volts and amperes the debate will not be objective.

Use the headroom for clean peaks is not an objective statement - it is the typical subjective statement of people who listen at average low levels with reasonably efficient speakers but find that 500W ampliifers sound better.

BTW, I know I never clip my amplifiers - my system is fully power calibrated.

 

[Robh3606]

This is a thread on objectivity and subjectivity and we are debating aspects related to amplifier sound quality. Unless we are able to quantify the peaks in watts, volts and amperes the debate will not be objective.

Use the headroom for clean peaks is not an objective statement - it is the typical subjective statement of people who listen at average low levels with reasonably efficient speakers but find that 500W ampliifers sound better.

BTW, I know I never clip my amplifiers - my system is fully power calibrated.

Hello Micro

What follows is an Objective statement?? You quantify watts, volts and amperes??

Tim,
Just an example - Dynaudio Consequence mk2, Soundlabs A1s, JMlab Grande Utopia or Wilson Maxx3. Listen to a Dartzeel SS amplifier through them - it will keep its characteristic basic sound. Then listen to the Devialet. All these speakers sound very different, but you will be able to identify the main characteristics of these two very different sounding amplifiers in all of them.

You seemed to question Dons statement here.

Originally Posted by DonH50
(...) Well within spec for an amplifier, that is meeting the data sheet specs. Again IMO/IME (this thread gives me the need to repeat that time and time again), for listening tests that primarily means well within its power capability (and I do not have a good number for that, sorry; maybe 10 - 20 dB below max output) and load impedance (e.g. a speaker that does not have extremely low impedances -- most amps do OK with higher impedances, though I have not thought about the impact of higher-Z on a tube output transformer where the mismatch might matter more).

You do realize that virtually all systems are operated this way independent of power ratings if you don't want to clip the amps. That's why I questioned your response to him. Considering we are talking audiophile type speaker systems where most are in the mid 80-low 90's it is pretty much a certainty that this is true. You always operate an amp well below it's rated power that's a given in a high fidelity system.

When you did your listening test above did you purposely abuse the amps and run them into clipping making any comparison useless or did you do your comparisons at a sane level we would all enjoy listening at??

Please explain how your system is " fully power calibrated"?

I never clip my amps except the LFE channels in my main system. You know how I know that?? It's really simple I don't exceed the SPL the system was designed to cleanly reproduce. Does that make mine "fully power calibrated"?

Can you please explain your point better. I seem to have missed it. Thanks


Rob

 

[DonH50]

Thanks. I find rather disturbing that you refer that an amplifier should be operated 10-20dB below max output power for listening tests - specially because 10-20 dB is a high difference. IMHO one good thing about digital is that maximum peak power is always easy to check, something we did not have with analog.

I see you refer listening experiences carried 20-30 years ago. Looking retrospectively, at that time you had a point - the sound of a Quad 405, a Merdian 105 or an Hafler was much more similar than the Devialet versus the Dartzeel I am referring.

Yes, most of my experience was 20 - 30 years ago, with much less supplemental listening in the past few years. Mainly because of time and access to high-end gear, but also at least partly because the prices have gotten so high (to me) that I simply have had less inclination to listen. I have heard some of the newer gear and am not sure my limited recent experience invalidates my fundamental conclusions, but each must draw their own conclusions based upon their own experience. Now and then I get blasted by somebody for not having enough current listening experience; so be it.

I have no experience with Devialet nor Dartzeel, nor am I likely to -- I don't know if anybody around here carries them. BTW, the Hafler was one of the least SS-sounding amps we tested...

Ages ago some AES study demonstrated peak-to-average power levels averaged around 17 dB (power ratio of about 50:1) for recorded music. So, operating at an average power 10 to 20 dB below full-scale seems unreasonable. Listening tests were at moderate volumes, and I do not think we were near clipping any of the amps at the time (maybe my D79). Remember a pair of speakers with 86 dB/W/m sensitivity will put out ~80 dB at 8 - 10 feet with just 1 W input. An average of 80 dB is pretty loud to me... 1 W is 20 dB below 100 W. And, the goal was to see if we could distinguish amplifiers operating well within spec; we knew about the differences heard as they clip (although all amps clipping hard sound pretty much the same -- ugly!) I was less involved in the listening tests because I was doing measurements and was the gopher swapping amps and speakers so couldn't participate (just an interested observer; I did listen closely).

In the analog days we tested average power with RMS V/I meters and peak using a two-channel 'scope (for current and voltage).

I'm not sure I remember all the components we tried. My D79, a D90, another tube amp or two (including my old Eico), Krell monoblocks, a Threshold Stasis, Crown 300, Phase Linear 700, Hafler stock and modified, couple of receivers, Perraux (is that right? New Zealand company), ML, Stax, the usual suspects of the day. Almost all using records or tape (ML-modified Studer); CDs had a ways to go back then.

It can certainly be argued all my experience is irrelevant as being out of date. I have too little time with modern gear to say, although I surprised myself and a friend by instantly identifying when a couple of amps were switched at a local high-end shop. Suppose I got lucky...

 

[rbbert]

We've been through some of this before. Well recorded, dynamic music will have peak volumes as much as 20 dB (or even a little more) above average volumes.

 

[microstrip]

Rob,

Although most amplifiers are rated in watts, we measure usually measure clipping juts checking the voltage output - it is usually assumed that if the maximum peak voltage at the output is less than the peak voltage at the rated power you are not clipping your amplifier.

If your preamplifier volume has a accurate scale - as most preamplifiers having a digital display of gain have - and you are using a digital source you can easily know what is the maximum power you can have at any scale position. You just play a 0dB test tone (maximum possible level in your CD player or DAC) and measure - if you do it with the speakers connected probably you will blow them and your ears, BTW. You have to do it without loudspeakers - some amplifiers do not like it, or using resistors as charge.
I usually do it using a test track recorded at -40dB and making the adequate correction in the calculus of maximum voltage and power.

IMHO using soundmeters to measure average levels and adding a safety margin is just an approximate thumb rule, that is not adequate to be used when you carry amplifiers comparisons.

And no, I never abuse from my amplifiers - I have a small card near my system with a written table - volume setting - max. power. A good advantage of knowing your system power calibration is that you reduce the risk of blowing tweeters. I first started carry this type of calibration when I was using Quad ESL63 with a Krell KSA300s - a fantastic but doubly lethal combination - careless use would burn the ESL panels, and the crowbar protection circuit of the speakers could kill the Krell.

 

[DonH50]

Depends on the music, of course. IIRC, some pop music had only 10 dB, while some other recordings 30 dB or more. The 17 dB was an average for a time when 50 W/ch was considered plenty by many folk and high-amps were coming into vogue, so the need for 50:1 power headroom was a selling point.

 

[DonH50]

IMHO using soundmeters to measure average levels and adding a safety margin is just an approximate thumb rule, that is not adequate to be used when you carry amplifiers comparisons.

So, what is adequate? Just how audible are those short-duration peaks, how large, etc.? At this point I think we're getting speculative, and it is clear my experience is inadequate for this discussion, or at the least does not meet your standards. I do not recall all the conditions, do not have the data (well, some of it is probably in a basement file), and it would not matter because it is outdated anyway.

Besides, I need to practice, why do composers use three different horn keys in one piece of music? - Don

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Micro

Thanks for your explanation. There are a few points I don't quite understand.

You just play a 0dB test tone (maximum possible level in your CD player or DAC) and measure - if you do it with the speakers connected probably you will blow them and your ears, BTW. You have to do it without loudspeakers - some amplifiers do not like it, or using resistors as charge.
I usually do it using a test track recorded at -40dB and making the adequate correction in the calculus of maximum voltage and power.

Don't I already have that information?? The amps are rated for power using resistive loads no?? Also the input voltage sensitivity of the amp is going to determine just how fast full power is reached on your digital volume control. So you would have to account for that as well.

When you do your -40dB track what are you looking at the voltage across the load and then calculating the power??


You set an arbitrary playing volume based on the recorded level of the source. If you set your preamp level to say -15dB you can't guarantee you won't clip. How do you know the dynamic range of the CD you just put on?? The dynamic range of the source in the key to determinig where to set your arbitrary level to avoid clipping.

The only way to guarantee you won't clip is to use limiters that clamp the input voltage to the amp at a fixed level below 0dB. Just like the Pro's do.

IMHO using soundmeters to measure average levels and adding a safety margin is just an approximate thumb rule, that is not adequate to be used when you carry amplifiers comparisons.

Aren't you doing essentially the same thing from the input side??

Here is what I do. My HT/Stereo mains are a 4 way active set-up. My woofer sensitivity is 98dB so with 100 watts driving them I can hit 118db with a single and 121db with a pair. If I subtract 6db loss from distance to my actual listening position I get 115db. My target is THX level which is 105db peaks. That leaves me 10db of headroom above THX peak levels. I rarely play movies at THX levels.

When you did your amp comparisons what did you do?? Did you account for different input sensitivities or did you rely on the digital output level of the preamp?? As I see it the only way to do amp comparisons is by putting on real loads, loudspeakers, and level matching them using a sound level meter in your room at the listening position. If you don't level match the amps all comparisons are bogus.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

i dont know who tomOlex is but i dont remember saying either of those things!!

It didn't sound like you...

Tim

 

[terryj]

No I do not want to start. .

No wucking furries.

Business as usual then.

This is a thread on objectivity and subjectivity and we are debating aspects related to amplifier sound quality. Unless we are able to quantify the peaks in watts, volts and amperes the debate will not be objective.

You mean to have an objective debate, we need data and a common understanding of terms with quantification?

Cool. So again, when a dac chip from the same batch sounds completely different, can you try to quantify 'completely different' for us? Maybe find an online paint chart, and show us visually how different two colours have to be to satisfy your definition of completely different.

Remember, it is imperative that these terms get defined, hence your pushing of Don. Look forward to your clarification of this sticky area. Thanks.

Did you ever answer just how you determined your left and right channels of your amp are the same? After all, they do use different components, maybe not even from the same batch. Anyways, just latching on your recent exposition of the importance being clear. Maybe, if you have the time, you could explain also how you determined (exactly, you know, just like you asked Don how he measured the amps etc) that the dynaudio example did have identical FR. It is rather important, it seems to have become a major plank in your world view.

I mean, if it is important that Don explain exactly how and why he came to his conclusions, it is equally important you are similarly upfront right?

I ran this thru a character counter, it came in well under 6000, so no excuses this time.

 

[microstrip]

No wucking furries.

Business as usual then.




You mean to have an objective debate, we need data and a common understanding of terms with quantification?

Cool. So again, when a dac chip from the same batch sounds completely different, can you try to quantify 'completely different' for us? Maybe find an online paint chart, and show us visually how different two colours have to be to satisfy your definition of completely different.

Remember, it is imperative that these terms get defined, hence your pushing of Don. Look forward to your clarification of this sticky area. Thanks.

Did you ever answer just how you determined your left and right channels of your amp are the same? After all, they do use different components, maybe not even from the same batch. Anyways, just latching on your recent exposition of the importance being clear. Maybe, if you have the time, you could explain also how you determined (exactly, you know, just like you asked Don how he measured the amps etc) that the dynaudio example did have identical FR. It is rather important, it seems to have become a major plank in your world view.

I mean, if it is important that Don explain exactly how and why he came to his conclusions, it is equally important you are similarly upfront right?

I ran this thru a character counter, it came in well under 6000, so no excuses this time.

Terry ,

My sentence applies to Don comment "working well within spec". He kindly answered my point, I have also told how I check maximum values. We never debated FRs. Opinions about sound characteristics, both Don and mine, are mainly subjective and individual. What else do you want?