Mikey seemed to really like this Integrated Amplifier!

[fas42]

The most crucial aspect of "accuracy" is lack of distortion, outweighs all the others by a good margin. But because the industy can't, or won't, properly investigate the nature of the lower level distortions that typically get mixed in with the sound, that are a key element of creating the tube, or transistor, or all the other "sounds", the normal consumer is pretty well helpless in trying to make considered decisions as to the right components to buy. Now, if some bright spark actually did the sort of measurements that sorted this all out, and published them, then you could assemble a system knowing what the end result would be, in terms of the precise nature of the sound quality, especially deep into that glorious wordscape that audiophiles are so fond of, and people could then just get on with "enjoying the music". But this would take a lot of the "fun" out of this mad game, so what would be the point of doing that ?? :b:b

Frank

 

[fas42]

And another point. The job of an amplifying circuit is to amplify, anything else is an effects unit, like the the little boxes on the floor hooked up to Tim's guitar. In the audio game this amplifier/effects unit may be extremely expensive, and the effects very subtle, but they are still effects, colourations, "distortions". If that's what you want, that's fine, but don't live in the delusion that what you're getting is more "accuracy" ...

In the world of op amps, for an "ideal" one the characteristics of the output are 100% determined by the feedback circuit - typically 2 resistors - the guts of the op amp are 100% invisible as far as the output is concerned. Now, in the real world, different op amps DO sound different, but that's because something is defective: the op amp is NOT perfect, or its surrounding circuitry is influenced by the behaviour of the op amp. But the important thing is that if two things sound different, then either one or both are "defective", there is a lack of accuracy.

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

Of course the "emotion" is in the recording. Some components "filter" it out. Intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course the "emotion" is in the recording. Some components "filter" it out. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Nonsense. We got the full emotion of the great music of our youths from cheap transistor radios and crude phonographs. We still can, if our pretensions haven't sucked us dry.

Tim

 

[KeithR]

Of course.



That seems to me like the reason to use the SS amp, not the reason to use the tube pre. Again, if there is no sonic benefit, what is the justification for the use of the more expensive, less efficient, less reliable technology?

Tim

Simple- they would buy a full tube system otherwise.

 

[KeithR]

Nonsense. We got the full emotion of the great music of our youths from cheap transistor radios and crude phonographs. We still can, if our pretensions haven't sucked us dry.

Tim

So Tim- if the performance is the conveyor of emotion and we don't want anything else coloring that chain---do you purposely avoid recordings that use tubes in the mastering chain?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So Tim- if the performance is the conveyor of emotion and we don't want anything else coloring that chain---do you purposely avoid recordings that use tubes in the mastering chain?

Nope. In this world in which we are a few generations into mutli-channel studio recordings, and almost no live recordings of quality are made without multiple, close mic placement and post-production processing, the recording, more often than not, is the performance. Besides, avoiding tubes certainly wouldn't get me away from coloration. SS gear can color the signal just as much as tubes. And no high fidelity gear -- tube, ss, digital -- is likely to color the signal as much as the aforementioned transistor radio. The point is that the emotion , the passion of Rachmaninoff, Holiday, Springsteen, transcends mere fidelity. It comes blasting through, even when great chunks of bandwidth are lost. That transistor radio is probably not the best playback vehicle for a syphony orchestra, but the emotion of most music should come through just fine. In any case, the best any reproduction system can do is get out of the way. This notion that our carefully chosen, painfully synergized systems are somehow contributing to the emotion of the art striikes me as incredibly presumptuous. YMMV.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

This notion that our carefully chosen, painfully synergized systems are somehow contributing to the emotion of the art striikes me as incredibly presumptuous. YMMV.

Tim

Tim, I don't disagree with you. The system needs to allow the emotion of the art to come through unimpeded and unchanged. In my experience (and I have not been to figure out how to measure it), some components seem to be able to remove the emotion while letting all the sound through.

 

[Gregadd]

Nonsense. We got the full emotion of the great music of our youths from cheap transistor radios and crude phonographs. We still can, if our pretensions haven't sucked us dry.

Tim

Nonsense? The better the external clue the better the internal response. Curious that someone who claims we are influenced b the slightest external clue such as brand name, price, etc claims we are not influenced b the quality of sound.

 

[microstrip]

Of course the "emotion" is in the recording. Some components "filter" it out. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Greg,

Surely. We can find the basics to understand these mechanisms in the book "Sound Reproduction" of F. Toole. See this part of the summary of chapter 7 just of the effect of spaciousness.


CHAPTER 7 IMPRESSIONS OF SPACE

Impressions of space are the paramount audible factors distinguishing good spaces for live performances. They contribute much of the interest and identity to all large reverberant spaces we encounter. It is not necessary to replicate the sound field of a real space in a listening room; it is sufficient only to provide key cues in order to elicit a recollection or an emotion.

With good two-channel stereo recordings, one can get impressions of these kinds. With multichannel audio, such illusions can be delivered in any amount—including excess. (If you want to read more, you have to buy the book ... )

If your audio system is not able to reproduce this cues some listeners will miss something. It is not by chance that Chapter 2 is entitled Preserving the Art.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The point is that the emotion , the passion of Rachmaninoff, Holiday, Springsteen, transcends mere fidelity. It comes blasting through, even when great chunks of bandwidth are lost. That transistor radio is probably not the best playback vehicle for a syphony orchestra, but the emotion of most music should come through just fine. In any case, the best any reproduction system can do is get out of the way. This notion that our carefully chosen, painfully synergized systems are somehow contributing to the emotion of the art striikes me as incredibly presumptuous. YMMV.

Tim

Tim,

This poor argument of the emotion that goes through the kitchen radio has been addressed in another thread, explaining that individual experiments do not have statistical value, and only analyzing a relevant number of cases you can conclude anything. The final function of a good audio system is just ameliorating the statistics of success in transmitting the emotion of the recording.

BTW, you are, may be inadvertently, distorting the audiophile perspective. No one says that the system contributes to the emotion in an additive sense. As Greg, wisely pointed, it lets the emotion flow.

IMHO, you should write This notion that our carefully chosen, painfully synergized systems are somehow allowing the flow of the emotion of the art (may be bad language, my apologies, but meaningful). Then debate if you agree or not.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

This poor argument of the emotion that goes through the kitchen radio has been addressed in another thread, explaining that individual experiments do not have statistical value, and only analyzing a relevant number of cases you can conclude anything. The final function of a good audio system is just ameliorating the statistics of success in transmitting the emotion of the recording.

This doesn't have anything to do with statistics, it is an opinion. That's why I ended it with YMMV.

BTW, you are, may be inadvertently, distorting the audiophile perspective. No one says that the system contributes to the emotion in an additive sense.

It's not inadvertent at all. I've seen that perspective implied, and stated directly, many times on audiophile forums.

As Greg, wisely pointed, it lets the emotion flow.

Even this gives chips and tubes and speakers and wire far too much credit in my opinion and experience. Again, YMMV.

IMHO, you should write This notion that our carefully chosen, painfully synergized systems are somehow allowing the flow of the emotion of the art (may be bad language, my apologies, but meaningful). Then debate if you agree or not.

It is my opinion that our audio reproduction systems have absolutely nothing to do with the emotion of the art. I feel every ounce of the pain, regret and longing in "If You See Her Say Hello" from earbuds plugged into an iPod. Sung as well, I would get the full emotional impact of it sung by a stranger and falling anonymously from a second story window as I walked by on the street below. Having heard it, and felt it, the full impact of the emotional content would cut through if I were merely reading the lyrics.

I don't know what audiophiles are even talking about when they speak of inantimate objects "letting artistic emotion flow." I sometimes think we are speaking different languages.

Again, YMMV.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

We convey emotion in many different ways.

Sex talk, for example, may be fast -slow, loud- soft, breathy, trembling, grunting, moaning, shaky- trembling, clear incoherent etc. The difference between low resolution and high resolution systems in conveying these differences should be self evident. The amount of resolution required to provoke different responses in different individuals should not be ignored.

 

[microstrip]

T

It is my opinion that our audio reproduction systems have absolutely nothing to do with the emotion of the art. (...)
I don't know what audiophiles are even talking about when they speak of inantimate objects "letting artistic emotion flow." I sometimes think we are speaking different languages.
Again, YMMV.

Tim

Again from F.Toole. I am sure that , at less, you will appreciate the part about bias :

The origin of emotion in a listener is the art itself—the music or movie—and not the audio hardware. It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver, yet without good ones, listening experiences will be diminished. Since the true nature of the original sound cannot be known to listeners, one cannot say “it sounds as it should.” But listeners routinely volunteer opinions on scales that are variations of like-dislike, which frequently have a component of emotion.

Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification, and most of us can recognize it when we hear it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We convey emotion in many different ways.

Sex talk, for example, may be fast -slow, loud- soft, breathy, trembling, grunting, moaning, shaky- trembling, clear incoherent etc. The difference between low resolution and high resolution systems in conveying these differences should be self evident. The amount of resolution required to provoke different responses in different individuals should not be ignored.

I'm not ignoring you, Greg, I'm disagreeing with you. I will concede that a system could reproduce music so poorly that a listener might be unable grasp the emotional content, but in my view that is an extreme situation, not the kind of thing we discuss here daily. Here's an example not so close to our own emotional investments: Pull up some of Van Goh's self portraits on your computer. If one cannot see the emotion that is in his face, the quiet, creeping paranioa, the desperation that is so clear in some of those paintings, it is not the monitor that is emotionally stunted. Turn the brightness down until all the detail is lost to a grey shadow of the painting. Now the emotion is lost. That's the kind of extreme that is required, IMO. You definitely lose something, looking at such a painting on a monitor instead of standing before it in a museum. But it is nuance, not emotional impact. At least it is for me. Your emotional experience may vary.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Again from F.Toole. I am sure that , at less, you will appreciate the part about bias :

The origin of emotion in a listener is the art itself—the music or movie—and not the audio hardware. It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver, yet without good ones, listening experiences will be diminished. Since the true nature of the original sound cannot be known to listeners, one cannot say “it sounds as it should.” But listeners routinely volunteer opinions on scales that are variations of like-dislike, which frequently have a component of emotion.

Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification, and most of us can recognize it when we hear it.

I have great respect for Mr. Toole, but this wouldn't be the first time I thought I'd seen him indulge in overstatement. There really is little to argue here, boys. This is surely a matter of opiniion.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I'm not ignoring you, Greg, I'm disagreeing with you. I will concede that a system could reproduce music so poorly that a listener might be unable grasp the emotional content, but in my view that is an extreme situation, not the kind of thing we discuss here daily. Here's an example not so close to our own emotional investments: Pull up some of Van Goh's self portraits on your computer. If one cannot see the emotion that is in his face, the quiet, creeping paranioa, the desperation that is so clear in some of those paintings, it is not the monitor that is emotionally stunted. Turn the brightness down until all the detail is lost to a grey shadow of the painting. Now the emotion is lost. That's the kind of extreme that is required, IMO. You definitely lose something, looking at such a painting on a monitor instead of standing before it in a museum. But it is nuance, not emotional impact. At least it is for me. Your emotional experience may vary.

Tim

You called it nonsense. I take this quote is a retraction. The argument is not that the resolution of the equipment does not effect emotional impact, but to what degree it does on a particular system and individual. if that's your point we can agree.

 

[fas42]

In my experience (and I have not been to figure out how to measure it), some components seem to be able to remove the emotion while letting all the sound through.

Back to "Truth and Tonality", eh ...?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You called it nonsense. I take this quote is a retraction. The argument is not that the resolution of the equipment does not effect emotional impact, but to what degree it does on a particular system and individual. if that's your point we can agree.

I did. I' m prone to overstatement sometimes myself. The statement I over-reacted to --

Of course the "emotion" is in the recording. Some components "filter" it out. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Yes we can agree that the resolution of a component can "filter out" emotional impact, if that component is so dysfunctional that it is incapable of communicating the emotional message. In the context of what we discuss here daily, though, it is not a relevant point, IMO. There are great differences in fidelity between the systems discussed here, but I'm confident that, in a receptive mood, I coud get the same emotions from music played on frank's HTIB that I'd get from Steve's Lamms and Wilson's. Your emotional responses may, indeed, vary, I' m afraid.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

It looks like I've lost control of the threadstart, so let me try and bring it back a little bit (although I've enjoyed reading all of your posts).

Thinking out loud here....for the price of the Vincent I could get 2 Emotiva XPA-1's, and use my Pio IA as a preamp. This would give me all the headroom I would ever need and I could concentrate on getting a proper preamp a little later (and preferably one with a good phonostage built-in.). What are your thoughts on such a scenario?