Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

[Ron Party]

No worries, Greg.

I agree that you stay on the merits when pressing your points. It's when you challenge others you resort to the "lack of DBT"

Just as you find it frustrating when others imply "you do not listen" I find it equally frustrating when others imply "I ignore measurements."

I think this is a deeply profound post. It really does illustrated succinctly the polar opposites. The question is: how do we bridge the gap? How do we move forward as people who really love music and care more than the average joe about our choices in reproduction equipment? I just posted a quote by Dr. Geddes because I think it also was deeply profound. The solution is: we need both camps, neither one to the exclusion of the other. The solution is: we need to accept that each camp is espousing a valid position instead of (mis)characterizing the other side's position. To the extent we accomplish what at least in my mind is a simple solution, the better off we will be in our choices of gear, the better off we will be in our ability to enjoy the music, and, as an aside, the better off we will be in an internet forum.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Please take it easy, Ethan, the conversation has been occurring at an excellent level of diplomacy overnight (for me!), and it would be a shame to muck it up now

I agree, and I don't usually call people names. However, I make an exception for Michael Fremer and I'm glad to give a little background. I have had dozens and dozens of emails over the past few months with Michael Fremer and John Atkinson and my friend Carl Engebretsen. In every single email Fremer has called Carl and me a douche bag. It's like he's obsessed with those two words. He also drops the F-bomb as readily as normal people use normal words. You would not believe the hate and vitriol that spews from this guy's fingertips.

I have been extremely polite in all of my dealings with Michael, and I have offered countless times to drive to his home to visit in person, to hopefully come to a meeting of the minds. Every time he says he can tell if an LP has been "demagnetized," I ask as nicely as possible if I can visit and watch him identify which is which blind. After all, if the difference is so readily obvious as he claims, he should be able to tell which is which without looking. I am as non-confrontational as possible, yet he always tells me to basically drop dead.

What bothers me most about Fremer, and people who think like him, is he never has a plausible explanation for any of his beliefs. No matter how nicely I ask, his emails back almost always contain "douche bag" and the F-word. But enough about Fremer. I'll stop here.

Rather than divert this topic further, I'm going to start a new thread in my own forum section that I hope will resolve some of the "measure versus listen" debate. I'm not optimistic, but I'll try. I hope that mep and Greg and others will participate, because I truly believe that we all want to know The Truth about this stuff.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree that you stay on the merits when pressing your points. It's when you challenge others you resort to the "lack of DBT"

Just as you find it frustrating when others imply "you do not listen" I find it equally frustrating when others imply "I ignore measurements."

The only argument I am trying to eliminate is that subjective reviwers are afraid DBT because they will be unable to idnetify the differences they claim to hear.

Fair enough. It seemed that you were trying to eliminate blind listening from the dialogue. I'll try not to imply that all subjective reviewers are afraid of DBT. Some reviewers and, more importantly, some "high-end" manufacturers who should fare well in such comparisons, seem to not only want to avoid DBT, but to discredit it.

I find that curious.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

Here's the link to the new thread:

Measuring Versus Listening

I really hope people will participate.

--Ethan

 

[fas42]

To kick things along a bit, and to get back on topic again, Tim, you said

By the way, I don't personally think the differences between amplifiers are inaudible, though I find that beyond a point, they are insignificant.

So you recognise there are audible differences, so how do these differences sound to you, and what exactly is that point of insignificance, in what area?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To kick things along a bit, and to get back on topic again, Tim, you said


So you recognise there are audible differences, so how do these differences sound to you, and what exactly is that point of insignificance, in what area?

Frank

Some amps seem to be a bit thicker in the midrange and others are more open, for lack of better descriptive language. Some seem to have better bass control than others. The open mids and the better bass control always seem to be the same amps. The differences become insignificant, by my estimation, when it reaches the point where I'm not quite sure if I'm hearing it or imagining it, and pretty certain I couldn't pick it out blind. And frankly, given more than sufficient headroom in two quality amps not designed for a "signature sound," that's most of the time.

But it could just be me, Frank. Some folks around here seem to be listening for differences in gear. I'm usually not, and when I catch myself doing it I try to stop myself, as it ruins the listening experience for me. I've gone from regular passive systems to passive systems with massive amounts of headroom, to headphone systems, to active systems with ridiculous amounts of headroom, chasing detail, listening for the difference between an Adirondack spruce soundboard and a Sitka spruce soundboard, the difference between bronze wound strings and phosphor bronze wound strings. In those rare moments when I think I hear that deep, part of it could be the amp, but the amp is not what I'm listening to.

Tim

PS: By the way, I'm not trying to say that my obsession with listening for detail is any more honorable or less neurotic than an obsession with listening to gear. My best moments, like everyone's I suspect, are when I can just relax and listen to the music.

 

[microstrip]

(...)
I'll try not to imply that all subjective reviewers are afraid of DBT. Some reviewers and, more importantly, some "high-end" manufacturers who should fare well in such comparisons, seem to not only want to avoid DBT, but to discredit it.

I find that curious.

Tim

Tim,

I find it natural. Consumers do not know what a DBT is, and even if they imagine it, they do not have knowledge enough of statistics to understand the results. Misrepresentation of the results could seriously harm their activity.

I would not call any of the few challenges I have read in this forum a meaningful DBT . No one dared to fully explain the methodology of analysis he pretends to use, although some nonsenses were suggested.

 

[Gregadd]

I think Tim makes a good point. Designing , reviewing, and measuring equipment and sitting down to listen are two very different things. So while HP points out the resolution of his system allows him to hear subway trains running beneath the recording studio that would be quite annoying to the music lover.
Some of us have read so may reviews we forget about the music and try to duplicate what the reviewer heard. Once you zero in on these non-musical clues they are almost impossible to ignore. It's akin to me telling you don't think about pink elephants.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I find it natural. Consumers do not know what a DBT is, and even if they imagine it, they do not have knowledge enough of statistics to understand the results. Misrepresentation of the results could seriously harm their activity.

That makes perfectly good sense.

I would not call any of the few challenges I have read in this forum a meaningful DBT . No one dared to fully explain the methodology of analysis he pretends to use, although some nonsenses were suggested.

I don't think anyone here, with the exception of Sean Olive, is doing any blind listening above a very informal level, and I don't recall anyone representing themselves as such. I wish more manufacturers did DBT in product development, personally, but I understand it is expensive and outside of the reach of many.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Some amps seem to be a bit thicker in the midrange and others are more open, for lack of better descriptive language

To what do you ascribe that sound; frequency response, distortion, output impedance, pixy dust? I'm asking because that seems to vearing to the area of tonality, as compared to truth. Do you think that quality of the sound could be measured in some fashion?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To what do you ascribe that sound; frequency response, distortion, output impedance, pixy dust? I'm asking because that seems to vearing to the area of tonality, as compared to truth. Do you think that quality of the sound could be measured in some fashion?

Frank

Pixie dust. Clipping. Harmonic distortion. FR variations. Yes, I suspect it could be measured if it's real. Often, I suspect it's not. I don't carry meters around with me to balance the volume within a fraction of a db; and if the volumes aren't nearly perfectly matched, all bets are off. More often than not, you can nudge the "thick" one up just a bit and then it sounds clearer. There are exceptions, of course -- most low-powered tube amps, any amp without sufficient power for the load, some amps from the Naim/Lin "PRaT" school are distinctive in their deliberate zingy sort of way, some class D amps are a bit zingy as well; though not, I suspect, by design.

In other words, Frank, while I hear differences between quality amps, I suspect they're only significant when they are deliberate manipulations of the signal or a result of insufficient power for the load. And I think the best place to find more than enough grunt for even difficult loads into normal listening rooms is at the upper reaches of midfi -- HK, Cambridge Audio, Yamaha -- scaled to the speakers in mind. Of course just buying the right integrated amp and being done with it kills off half the gearhound fun. At that point, you may as well go to good actives and subs which is, of course the next logical step up the ladder. Well done, they'll give you an appropriate match to individual drivers and eliminate a whole category of noise makers. Just be careful to get the more powerful stuff if you want to fill a room instead of just a desk.

MHO. YMMV. YADAYADAYADA.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...)
And I think the best place to find more than enough grunt for even difficult loads into normal listening rooms is at the upper reaches of midfi -- HK, Cambridge Audio, Yamaha -- scaled to the speakers in mind.
(...)

Although I understand your enumeration is only illustrative, I went to the sites of the manufacturers you listed and could not find any specifications on their products that could support this claim.

Could you list some links to real, trusty measurements of such products?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Although I understand your enumeration is only illustrative, I went to the sites of the manufacturers you listed and could not find any specifications on their products that could support this claim.

Could you list some links to real, trusty measurements of such products?

I can't. I'm not saying they're not out there, but independent measurements are pretty hard to find. I threw HK in there because the HK 990 has such a great reputation. I confess I haven't heard it. I've heard Yamaha's S2000 and CA's 840A driving a variety of speakers. Neither ever broke a sweat and, in my opinion, squeezed the most of of all of those speakers. But it's not a claim, it's an opinion. I think the upper reaches of midfi are the best place to find that kind of performance because they are rarely trying to create a "signature sound." They are merely producing the best product they can, usually with much deeper resources than any audiophile company can bring to the party.

Tim

 

[amirm]

There is actually pretty compelling blind test data on amps sounding different. Yes it is an obscure reference for those of us in US and the testing could be faulted to some extent (all tests can be faulted ), it is good data nevertheless. Here it is: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ear-Measurements&p=18024&viewfull=1#post18024

 

[microstrip]

But it's not a claim, it's an opinion. I think the upper reaches of midfi are the best place to find that kind of performance because they are rarely trying to create a "signature sound." They are merely producing the best product they can, usually with much deeper resources than any audiophile company can bring to the party.
Tim

It is not a claim, it is only my opinion, but this type of argument only leads to designing equipment with better electrical specifications. BTW, if you enter in the manufacturer pages of the products you refer to have listened to you will find where your money is spent:

Full Floating and Balanced Circuit Design Achieves for the First Time the Full Potential of Analogue Amplification
Full-Stage Balanced Signal Transmission
Floating Balanced Power Amp
Fully Balanced Control Amp
Parallel Volume and Tone Controls
Symmetrical Construction
Specially Designed Feet
Headphone Amp for Low Impedance Drive
Discrete Phono Amp

Only components of the highest quality are used, these include powerful trans-formers, extra heavy feet and selected blocking capacitors with 24,000 microfarad each. In addition, the use of independent amplifier units for the right and left channel ensure maximum channel separation.

At the core of the xxx ’s strength is a patent pending, Class XXX (crossover displacement) technology.

This unique design gives pure Class A operation at low levels, moving smoothly into an enhanced version of Class B at higher levels. This system should not be confused with Class AB, which inherently generates greater distortion at high levels than a pure Class B design.

XXX technology feeds a controlled current into the output stage in a new way so that the usual Class B crossover point no longer occurs at zero volume - the worst possible position in terms of distortion – but at a significant output level.

The result is a smooth and linear transition between the two modes of operation, which differs significantly from the abrupt, distorted gain transition of a Class AB amplifier.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It is not a claim, it is only my opinion, but this type of argument only leads to designing equipment with better electrical specifications. BTW, if you enter in the manufacturer pages of the products you refer to have listened to you will find where your money is spent:

Full Floating and Balanced Circuit Design Achieves for the First Time the Full Potential of Analogue Amplification
Full-Stage Balanced Signal Transmission
Floating Balanced Power Amp
Fully Balanced Control Amp
Parallel Volume and Tone Controls
Symmetrical Construction
Specially Designed Feet
Headphone Amp for Low Impedance Drive
Discrete Phono Amp

Only components of the highest quality are used, these include powerful trans-formers, extra heavy feet and selected blocking capacitors with 24,000 microfarad each. In addition, the use of independent amplifier units for the right and left channel ensure maximum channel separation.

At the core of the xxx ’s strength is a patent pending, Class XXX (crossover displacement) technology.

This unique design gives pure Class A operation at low levels, moving smoothly into an enhanced version of Class B at higher levels. This system should not be confused with Class AB, which inherently generates greater distortion at high levels than a pure Class B design.

XXX technology feeds a controlled current into the output stage in a new way so that the usual Class B crossover point no longer occurs at zero volume - the worst possible position in terms of distortion – but at a significant output level.

The result is a smooth and linear transition between the two modes of operation, which differs significantly from the abrupt, distorted gain transition of a Class AB amplifier.

Not sure what you're getting at. I suspect the money was spent on a bit more than the marketing copy on the manufacturers' web pages.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Not sure what you're getting at. I suspect the money was spent on a bit more than the marketing copy on the manufacturers' web pages.

Tim

Just to show where the non-audiophile much deeper resources can bring to the party.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Still not sure I get your meaning. If you're saying that the marketing copy from their web page is indicative of the resources brought to the design and manufacture of the products, I guess I'll just have to wonder where you got such a silly idea. If you're trying to say that some boutique manufacturer of high-end amplifiers has deeper pockets, greater R&D ability and better engineers than Harman International or Yamaha, well, that's even sillier. Can a couple of guys with vision and drive turn out a product that is superior to the research, engineering and design teams of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world, bent on making a point with a flagship product?

Sure, it could happen. The thing that is incredible is that audiophiles seem to think it happens almost every time.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Still not sure I get your meaning
Tim

I can be more precise - just showing that according to the "measurement theory" the "perfect measured sound" is a victim of the concept.

According to some people, since long time ago any improvement in electronics is completely worthless. So what are these people making with these fantastic large corporations resources you are referring? Just creating electronics with better specifications, that must be marketed using the same dubious claims you criticize in audiophile products - they do not even bother to show adequate measurements, they are too good to be meaningful.

BTW, your comparison is unfair - you are quoting the best large hifi corporations in the world and some "boutique manufacturer of high-end amplifiers" .You should compare their capabilities with the best of audiophile - e.g. Audio Research, Krell, Mark Levinson, conrad johnson, etc., that create a "signature sound".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

According to some people, since long time ago any improvement in electronics is completely worthless.

Perhaps, but I'm not one of those people.

So what are these people making with these fantastic large corporations resources you are referring? Just creating electronics with better specifications, that must be marketed using the same dubious claims you criticize in audiophile products

Hmmm...I don't think you'll ever find me criticizing any company, large or small, for making and marketing better specifications. Dubious, meaningless quasi-poetic nonsense that sounds like they're describing a violin, not a preamp? Yeah, I do tend to lampoon that sort of thing.

BTW, your comparison is unfair - you are quoting the best large hifi corporations in the world and some "boutique manufacturer of high-end amplifiers" .You should compare their capabilities with the best of audiophile - e.g. Audio Research, Krell, Mark Levinson, conrad johnson, etc., that create a "signature sound".

Well that was quite deliberate, a response to the many audiophiles who seem to think that any boutique "high-end" product, no matter how small the garage/shop, is automatically superior to any mass-produced product. I left out companies like Krell and Mark Levinson (Harman International, by the way) because these guys are pretty good and I suspect they can hold their own with a top of the line Harman Kardon integrated amp.

Tim