Is Nelson Pass saying very limited future improvement in Amps/Pre Amps?

May 30, 2010
13,939
20
38
Portugal
#2
https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science

Techies and Engineering types........Is this true?

What are your thoughts?
Very interesting comments on the different effect of second harmonic distortion on positive and negative phase of the signal - I would love to hear from other designers concerning this aspect.

Except that nothing really new, but again he clearly refers to audiophile preference:

In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it's what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful.

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...gy-and-end-science-page-2#YBFwYXfAMVKagiX3.99
 

Muser

New Member
Jan 22, 2016
14
0
1
#3
I don't think he's pointing to no developments. Perhaps the issue of amplifier development is like traveling by plane across the US. Getting there in one piece is a settled thing. Amplfication is handled with audio much as staying airborne in a plane is handled. But that doesn't mean the trip can't be more comfortable, quieter and faster.
 
Dec 12, 2012
243
0
16
#4
I suspect that Nelson is refering to the seeming truth that equipment performance advancements, both objective and subjective, are becoming more and more slight. In mathematics there is concept known as an asymptote. An asymptote is a line that approaches another line an progressively decreasingly manner, so that the two lines never actually meet. Speaking for myself, this seems to be occuring in audio equipment performance. Performance improvements appear to be in the realm of rapidly diminishing returns, increasingly minute in magnitude - while increasingly large in cost, by the way.

The bigger question is how close are we to achieving convincingly live sounding reproduction? In other words, if, as Nelson seems to be suggesting, we are nearing an audio equipment performance asymptote (which is a product of present technology), is that approaching asymptote near or relatively still far from the objective of convincingly live sounding reproduction? If it is relatively still far, one conclusion is that convincingly live reproduction will require an paradigm shift in technology, or technical approach, giving a new advancement line who's asymptote comes much nearer to the goal of convincingly live reproduction.
 

PeterA

Active Member
Dec 7, 2011
4,875
11
38
North Shore of Boston
#5
I once tried to ask how close people think we are with reproduced music. Some thought 5% like the real thing, others closer to 80-90%. It is all over the map and totally subjective. Would anyone blindfolded ever be able to confuse reproduced music with live music? If the answer is "no", does that mean that there is a huge gap in the difference, or that they sound very much alike, just slightly different enough to know which is which.

It is sort of like watching a good TV. Never do I think I am looking at real explosions or small actual people talking in front of me in my TV room. However, it is very easy for me to get lost into what I am watching, forget that it is all artificial, and simply immerse myself in the story telling experience and visual spectacle. It is the same with good music reproduced on a good system.

For either of these experiences to become more convincing and at the point of being indistinguishable from the real thing, on a subjective level, a real paradigm shift in technology will have to occur.
 
Oct 1, 2010
910
0
16
Cleveland Ohio
#6
I once tried to ask how close people think we are with reproduced music. Some thought 5% like the real thing, others closer to 80-90%. It is all over the map and totally subjective.........................................................
I would think that it's closer to 5% than to 80%. But any improvements will come in transducers (mics & speakers), rooms and recording techniques.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
6,871
1
38
Northern NY
#7
I think he's right. All the best basic topologies have been out for decades. Everyone is just tweaking, adding their own special sauce....save for Class D which I suppose is relatively new compared to SE, Push/Pull class A and Class AB switching amps.
 

RogerD

Active Member
May 23, 2010
3,142
0
36
BiggestLittleCity
#8
As in technology or software advances become increasingly hard to come by;the technology is mature. Speaker management and digital seem to be still fertile ground.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,555
0
36
Eastern WA
#9
The recordings are becoming the biggest obstacles if you ask me.

We see new stuff, but revolutionary we don't. However I wouldn't proclaim that you shouldn't expect to see new and exciting things. The tougher the circumstances, oftrn the better the innovation.
 

opus112

New Member
Feb 25, 2016
459
0
0
Zhejiang
#10
Techies and Engineering types........Is this true?
I like Nelson's approach - simplicity, finesse rather than brute-force numbers of transistors. But what did he mean by

The objective needs of amplifier users are largely solved on a practical level...

I wonder? I don't see that a cheaper, better sounding amp will not be appreciated by users.
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,075
0
36
Silicon Valley
#11
I like Nelson's approach - simplicity, finesse rather than brute-force numbers of transistors. But what did he mean by

The objective needs of amplifier users are largely solved on a practical level...

I wonder? I don't see that a cheaper, better sounding amp will not be appreciated by users.
I read it as meaning the science of amplifying a signal is understood. Maybe there are tweaks that can be done to a circuit to make the end result even more accurate, but what we have now is pretty darn close to perfect. I agree with previous statements that speakers and digital are where we will continue to see improvements over time.
 

opus112

New Member
Feb 25, 2016
459
0
0
Zhejiang
#12
I read it as meaning the science of amplifying a signal is understood.
But if it was understood as science wouldn't it be taught in EE schools? Then audiophile performance would be commoditized and the 'high-end' as we know it with its mythos would have died out.

Maybe there are tweaks that can be done to a circuit to make the end result even more accurate, but what we have now is pretty darn close to perfect.
In a $3 classD amp from Taobao or a Wavac ?
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,555
0
36
Eastern WA
#13
I like Nelson's approach - simplicity, finesse rather than brute-force numbers of transistors. But what did he mean by

The objective needs of amplifier users are largely solved on a practical level...

I wonder? I don't see that a cheaper, better sounding amp will not be appreciated by users.
Well, sadly, Pass is in the camp of starring at voltage distortion all day.

In that sense yes the objective requirements are beyond any "need". But there are a lot of things I would say he hasn't explored.




On a very different note if you look at the work of Bruno who designs all the Hypex stuff you should note he has proven different types of amplifiers don't even work on the same principles as what, say, Pass builds. His classD designs almost defy physics with how different it works.
 

opus112

New Member
Feb 25, 2016
459
0
0
Zhejiang
#14
In that sense yes the objective requirements are beyond any "need".
If by 'objective' he meant the current crop of measurements then yes, it makes sense and I agree. But Nelson is the origin I think of the saying (I am paraphrasing here, quoting from memory) :

'We should no more let measurements be a guide to audio quality than we allow chemical analysis to be a guide to a good wine'.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,555
0
36
Eastern WA
#15
If by 'objective' he meant the current crop of measurements then yes, it makes sense and I agree. But Nelson is the origin I think of the saying (I am paraphrasing here, quoting from memory) :

'We should no more let measurements be a guide to audio quality than we allow chemical analysis to be a guide to a good wine'.
Yes, I like how he takes subjective concerns into play. That's why he has so much success.
 
Jul 21, 2013
118
1
16
USA
#16
If by 'objective' he meant the current crop of measurements then yes, it makes sense and I agree. But Nelson is the origin I think of the saying (I am paraphrasing here, quoting from memory) :

'We should no more let measurements be a guide to audio quality than we allow chemical analysis to be a guide to a good wine'.
Nelson Pass also studied wine making in addition to physics, in college, if you did not know!
 

opus112

New Member
Feb 25, 2016
459
0
0
Zhejiang
#17
Nelson Pass also studied wine making in addition to physics, in college, if you did not know!
No, I didn't know that, thanks :) Could help to explain why in that article he's coming across more interested in creating different 'flavours' of amps rather than a more transparent one.
 

morricab

Active Member
Apr 25, 2014
2,288
3
38
Switzerland
#19
It seems to me to be a sort of acknowledgement that there has been no advancement in the devices themselves. They are just as non-linear as they have been over the last 90+ years since the first triode, which is still the most linear amplification device, was invented. Without a truly linear amplification devices, all amplifiers are trying to patch over that inherent non-linearity and many of the ways devised actually degrade the sound more than the core (low order) distortion...it is why the renaissance of triodes and SET in particular could even dream of making a comeback. Nelsons SE(Transistor) amps and simpistic designs is an admission that simpler is better than the sophisticated ways of making amps "linear".