-
Thought it would be fun to start a thread about audio myths. There are many out there, but let's start with this one:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy)
I've noticed some of the Class D amps have large transformer power supplies, as well as the vast majority of Class A and Class A/B amps.
According to this white paper, that is a myth for the reasons outlined. Thoughts?
-
A good idea for a thread, if a little dangerous!
-
Yep, probably best to just quarantine it now.
-
Current restriction. That might be the biggest. There is no such thing. If there was, breakers and fuses wouldn’t work.
Well, there is current tunneling but it doesn’t exist in audio playback or our daily life. We’re talking wires smaller than you can find. And they have to be cooled aggressively so that they don’t explode.
That’s what happens when you have too much current, you get an explosion if a breaker or whatever doesn’t trip. It’s from heat.
-
A good idea for a thread, if a little dangerous!
Yup!
Yep, probably best to quarantine it now.
:lol:
It's going to be a real hit and myth thread!
-
I think the myth regarding switching power supplies is that they're all inherently noisy. Often switching power supplies are used as a cost savings factor and when engineered on that basis they are generally noisy. A very well engineered switching power supply (like those designed and used by Jeff Rowland for example) actually outperform a linear supply but are quite expensive to build properly. It's easier for most designers to build a linear power supply which provides sufficient power and operates without generating excessive noise than to design a switcher that provides similar performance. Like most things in high end audio generalizations don't always apply, quality and ultimate performance of any design are often determined by implementation details.
Another audio myth is that a cartridge is the most important component of an analog playback source, and as long as the table spins at the correct speed it's the cartridge that will determine the performance level of the turntable. That belief is often based upon the truth that the cartridge is the only transducer in the turntable system which converts mechanical energy to electrical energy. As such it does have a significant impact on the turntable's performance, but the quality of the table itself along with the tonearm can have even a bigger impact than the cartridge. Any noise from the table (either transmitted from vibrations, bearing noise, motor noise, etc.) is picked up by the cartridge and then magnified many times by the amplification stages. The better the cartridge the more susceptible it is to picking up even minute noise or vibrations present in the system. If the tonearm doesn't do its job by rigidly holding the cartridge and controlling any resonances and minimizing extraneous vibrations then the entire setup fails to perform well. So an analog source should be a well matched combination of table, tonearm and cartridge in order to provide the best performance in any given price range.
-
:popcorn:
-
The term myth in regards to audio is just a loaded signifier for hobbyists with a particular viewpoint. So yeah I don’t see this ending well. Or should we just cut straight to the ethan winer links?
-
The myths are all based on what we want to believe versus science. Very easy to let our hearing fool us, in fact it's so embarrassing that I rarely admit to being one outside of the community. Amazing how many variations of high fidelity exist in the minds of audiophiles.
After 50+ years at this I have several opinions:
1.) Nearly all of us lack a decent musical background to appreciate what we're hearing.
2.) Very few have an understanding of how the room affects what we experience.
3.) Most tweaks are pure snake oil.
4.) We're largely trophy hunters, constantly seeking the next great prize.
-
We know how this thread will end. The only question is how long it will take.
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=194782)
-
Here is the next set of topics regarding myths. These deal mostly with digital vs. analog:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/digital-audio-demonstration-video (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/digital-audio-demonstration-video)
-
I dunno, I'm one of the subjectivists and I found the discussion on SMPS very interesting and I'd like to hear more.
-
Do we have to differentiate between:
a] Products base on Alternate Universe science & engineering?
b] Well manufactured products that don't affect the audible or measurable sound?
-
The elephant in the room is our own minds... :popcorn:
-
Here is the next set of topics regarding myths. These deal mostly with digital vs. analog:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/digital-audio-demonstration-video (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/digital-audio-demonstration-video)
I think this link, presentation, has been addressed in depth by some on another forum, and has some fundamental problems we tend to overlook. I know I did. I would like to post portions of their comments from this link if I may.
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/digital-technology-collection.64669/
Portion from CPT_paranoia"
His discussion of the stepless output is based on pure sampling theory, where each sample is a zero-width Dirac delta function (his 'lollipop diagram').
That's correct in theory, but in the real world, a DAC does implement the zero-order hold he mentions, and the output of the DAC chip DOES have steps; it does not produce zero-width delta function outputs. A DAC chip is therefore followed by a Nyquist reconstruction filter, to remove the steps.
A real-world ADC will also generate a sampling (or quantisation) error, as, unless you have infinite bits, there will be an error between the real sample, and the nearest ADC quantising value. His lollipops are assumed to be perfect samples, with zero quantisation error.
Sampling theory assumes perfect, 'brick-wall' Nyquist filters. In the real world, these do not exist. Real filters have problems like roll-off rates, and ripple in passband amplitude & phase....
It would have been illuminating for him to have changed the precision of his samples, from the 16 bits he used, to 8 bits, or even 4 bits. Using 16 bits, the quantisation error will be below the noise floor of the analyser he was using. It's not a good idea to try to claim an effect doesn't exist because you can't measure it....
I started my career working on the development of the GSM standard, and the first network and handsets. In particular, the frequency synthesis and modulation. We used a technique called Digiphase, a type of fractional-N synthesiser. It did direct digital modulation by constantly changing the synthesiser frequency. It used a third-order interpolator, combined with digital predistortion to meet the modulation and spectral mask requirements. Essentially, a noise-shaping DAC.
Portion from Joe:
The video has some problems. First, a scope won't reveal if the sine wave is "exactly" and/or a "perfect" sine wave. For instance, if the fundamental frequency is altered slightly, the scope will never reveal it. Even an amp with 5% or more harmonic distortion will be quite difficult to see on a scope. Now consider an entire orchestra, singing. Evidently, we must believe what he says.
If other frequencies are introduced, the scope will never reveal it. What do I mean by that? The distortion analyzer shows nothing but the fundamental frequency and harmonics. If the fundamental frequency is slightly altered, it will not be seen.
When dealing with bit depth, "stair steps" (16 bit, 65,536 values, 24 bit, we have 16,777,216 values), very rarely is the analog signal going to be exactly on a "value"/"step" during the sample period. The signal will be in between, so which value is chosen, an upper or lower value? Whichever value is chosen, the slope/rise time is altered between samples by definition, thus the fundamental frequency is also slightly altered between samples, said instrument won't reveal to us.
We won't have to worry about the slope exceeding 20khz unless the harmonic is quite high in frequency. Eight bit alters the slope/rise time even more, plus 8 bit lacks dynamics, inner detail even more than 16 bit. The inference that 8 bit, even 16 bit is enough for high quality music is the opposite of what Philips engineers believed, but RCA marketed 16 bit players anyway, and the rest is history.
Notice the Gibb's effect. It is within 20khz which is to be expected, Notice its amplitude value is high compared to the rectangular wave. Any Intermodulation distortion in the system, whether it be from speakers, electrical components, will cause mixing with this ringing, and cause non musical tones in the audio band.
It takes two samples to recreate a sine wave. At 10khz, there are only 4 samples per cycle, 5khz only 8 samples. However, music is not a simple sine wave nor a rectangular wave with equal repetitive waveforms. Music is complex with all sorts of phase relationships between instruments and their waveforms. Think it can reproduce the music perfectly when parts tolerances enter the picture and values are altered?
The author has not overcome the differences between theory and reality.
cheers
steve
-
The elephant in the room is our own minds... :popcorn:
Hey, I resemble that remark!
-
Thought it would be fun to start a thread about audio myths. There are many out there, but let's start with this one:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy)
I've noticed some of the Class D amps have large transformer power supplies, as well as the vast majority of Class A and Class A/B amps.
According to this white paper, that is a myth for the reasons outlined. Thoughts?
I have always thought all transformers color the sound. But some of the newer SET tube amps do not seem to be colored. Is that because of the size of the transformer?
David Berning and other companies quit making transformer driven tube amps many years ago because of this.
-
I have always thought all transformers color the sound. But some of the newer SET tube amps do not seem to be colored. Is that because of the size of the transformer?
David Berning and other companies quit making transformer driven tube amps many years ago because of this.
I have been able to even use Hammond OPTs and performed specialized, proprietary listening tests and found the amps to be super accurate, no artificial flavors. Push Pull can be just or even more accurate than SETs.
Cheers Tom.
steve
-
Thought it would be fun to start a thread about audio myths. There are many out there, but let's start with this one:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/152143111-audio-myth-switching-power-supplies-are-noisy)
I've noticed some of the Class D amps have large transformer power supplies, as well as the vast majority of Class A and Class A/B amps.
According to this white paper, that is a myth for the reasons outlined. Thoughts?
I thing there are a very few off-the-shelf switching supplies that are really clean. Most are designed very cheaply. Likewise, linear supplies have their flaws - most of them regulate too slowly so they are not great for digital sources.
The explanations that Benchmark gives are pretty lame IMO. Magnetics causing hum etc...
Even if you use a custom optimized switcher, you probably have to follow it with a fast linear regulator to get the best results (this is what I do). Noise floor will be affected by a switcher usually and sometimes they even put crap on the line voltage.
For the most part, switchers inherently regulate fast and linears inherently have low noise. You can certainly eliminate these deficiencies for both types of supplies if the designs are optimized.
Steve N.
-
I think this link, presentation, has been addressed in depth by some on another forum, and has some fundamental problems we tend to overlook. I know I did. I would like to post portions of their comments from this link if I may.
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/digital-technology-collection.64669/
I watched this a few years back and had a similar reaction. It does not get into the weeds like it should. The reproduction of complex HF transients is the thing that sets apart a really good DAC and a mediocre DAC. This is why in competent systems one can easily hear the improvement of 24/192 over 16/44.1. Digital filters also do much more damage to the sound quality that most realize, even those that roll-off at 40-60kHz. I call it the #2 problem with digital audio, #1 being jitter. Pre-ringing is another questionable effect. I have hear many non-apodizing filters that sounded bad.
Steve N.
-
I think that there is disagreement about the digital waveform. This link provides a different point of view from some posted on this thread.
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405 (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405)
Here is the key point: " The important thing to understand about the diagrams above is that the smooth analog waveform above each set of lines/blocks is the same. In reality, a 320 kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD, which is also indistinguishable from a real high-resolution audio file — if you could find one."
While I would like to think that a 24/192 would sound better than a 16/44 file, there has not been any definitive proof that is the case. It may be possible that a file sourced from 24/192 (of which there are damn few in existence-analog does not count), it still needs to be verified over time via testing.
-
I thing there are a very few off-the-shelf switching supplies that are really clean. Most are designed very cheaply. Likewise, linear supplies have their flaws - most of them regulate too slowly so they are not great for digital sources.
The explanations that Benchmark gives are pretty lame IMO. Magnetics causing hum etc...
Even if you use a custom optimized switcher, you probably have to follow it with a fast linear regulator to get the best results (this is what I do). Noise floor will be affected by a switcher usually and sometimes they even put crap on the line voltage.
For the most part, switchers inherently regulate fast and linears inherently have low noise. You can certainly eliminate these deficiencies for both types of supplies if the designs are optimized.
Steve N.
The Benchmark amp has been a Stereophile Class A recommended component for years, and the measured specs are outstanding. I think the facts clearly show that they are onto something. They purposely use a switched mode power supply in order to get better performance.
-
I think that there is disagreement about the digital waveform. This link provides a different point of view from some posted on this thread.
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405 (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405)
Here is the key point: " The important thing to understand about the diagrams above is that the smooth analog waveform above each set of lines/blocks is the same. In reality, a 320 kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD, which is also indistinguishable from a real high-resolution audio file — if you could find one."
Indistinguishable in 95% of systems, I would agree. I can easily hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 256K MP3 in my system.
Steve N.
-
Benchmark is a proprietary design. And look what it costs.
-
Indistinguishable in 95% of systems, I would agree. I can easily hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 256K MP3 in my system.
Steve N.
No argument here. I can also with both my setups.
What I think is harder is CD vs. Hi Res. IF the source is hi-res, then it may be possible. If it's not, then it's doubtful a difference can be picked up.
AIX will be conducting testing to see if a difference between CD and hi-res sources can be discerned.
-
Benchmark is a proprietary design. And look what it costs.
Fair enough, but look at what some folks pay for wire, which has zero engineering to back up the cost.
Benchmark and Devialet are among the best sounding systems I've come across. Both proprietary, both not cheap, but both well above normal high end performance. Second hand Devialet amps are actually pretty reasonable, considering you get a full preamp (including phono), DAC, and power amp. Don't need to spend $ on wire either.
-
Fair enough, but look at what some folks pay for wire, which has zero engineering to back up the cost.
Some cable companies do the engineering, others don't. I did computer simulations and empirical testing on all of my cables when I built them. Patented technology for both IC's and speaker cables. The cost is also due to labor-intensive assembly and parts costs.
Steve N.
-
Some cable companies do the engineering, others don't. I did computer simulations and empirical testing on all of my cables when I built them. Patented technology for both IC's and speaker cables. The cost is also due to labor-intensive assembly and parts costs.
Steve N.
Cables/wires is one area that I doubt will ever come to a consensus. I've TRIED to believe that cables can make a difference. My experience is that for analog, a moderate XLR cable is better than any mega dollar RCA.
Spending years with DIY tube audio has honed perceptions regarding what makes differences regarding sound quality. Parts quality, such as non-inductive resistors, Mundorf Silver/Gold caps, use of high quality tubes, tried and true designs, etc. DO make a difference. Cables, not so much. High quality internal wiring helps, but one does not have to spend big $ to get good wire.
I've posted this before, but believe this is as close to the truth regarding cables:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440 (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440)
-
“If you can’t hear differences between power cords, then be glad because you’re saving a lot of money” or “Your system isn’t good enough — it doesn’t resolve with sufficient clarity — to allow you to detect the very real differences”.
This is actually quite true. On the other hand it matters which cables you try. There is a LOT of snake oil by non-professional cable companies out there.
At audio frequencies a 6 ft analog interconnect still acts like a wire. It is not a distributed transmission line. I don’t have to think of reflections. A wavelength of say 100 kHz sine in a 80% velocity cable (pretty typical of modern 75ohm coaxial cables, e.g. Belden 8241F) is 3.7 kilometers. Even a 1000ft cable can’t possibly act like a transmission line, even as we talk ultrasonic. So manufacturers tagging audio cables as some kind of superior transmission line cables should check their facts – unless you are planning to run your analog audio straight across the country!
Analog interconnect cable performance is not about transmission-line effects. It is about crystal lattice effects in the metallurgy of the conductors, capacitance and dielectric absorption. This is why analog cables with really low capacitance and low dielelectric absorption sound better. This is why OCC minimum crystal silver (properly handled and annealed) sounds better than copper.
If this guy believes what he says, then he should immerse his copper cable in liquid nitrogen to break the crystal lattice and then listen to what that cable sounds like. He will throw the cable in the trash, guaranteed. The L, R and C of this cable will be unchanged and yet it is ruined. I have done this. He is missing an important part of the total analog picture. I was in the cable business for 15 years and learned a few things. I am also a EE, but a computer and supercomputer designer for 25 years.
Steve N.
-
The myths are all based on what we want to believe versus science. Very easy to let our hearing fool us, in fact it's so embarrassing that I rarely admit to being one outside of the community. Amazing how many variations of high fidelity exist in the minds of audiophiles.
After 50+ years at this I have several opinions:
1.) Nearly all of us lack a decent musical background to appreciate what we're hearing.
2.) Very few have an understanding of how the room affects what we experience.
3.) Most tweaks are pure snake oil.
4.) We're largely trophy hunters, constantly seeking the next great prize.
There is very little actual well researched independently peer reviewed studies on most anything related to this hobby. And what there is tends to be proprietary work for companies. And we all know the double standard of if we don't Believe the company then their research is rigged, but if they confirm our biases then they are bearers of the Truth.
The biggest myth is that there are audio myths that have been conclusively debunked. I'd rather people just be honest and just say IMO or in my experience etc. Because there ain't no audiophile research section at the public library and last I checked Science magazine didn't have TUBES : ARE THEY JUST DISTORTION GENERATORS? on the cover.
Walk up to someone and ask them what the biggest cancer myths are and they'll have an answer ask them what the biggest audio myths are and they'll say they've never heard of that band before.
-
I also think there should just be a thread or forum called PROVE IT where people can just put up their soap boxes and have at it. Would spare the binning and moderation.
-
My “myth” posted was never bunked to begin with among anyone that is considered an authority. It does not fit the “IMO” category.
-
Cables/wires is one area that I doubt will ever come to a consensus. I've TRIED to believe that cables can make a difference. My experience is that for analog, a moderate XLR cable is better than any mega dollar RCA.
Spending years with DIY tube audio has honed perceptions regarding what makes differences regarding sound quality. Parts quality, such as non-inductive resistors, Mundorf Silver/Gold caps, use of high quality tubes, tried and true designs, etc. DO make a difference. Cables, not so much. High quality internal wiring helps, but one does not have to spend big $ to get good wire.
I've posted this before, but believe this is as close to the truth regarding cables:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440 (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440)
Personally, in my lab, I have found ics make a difference for sure. But then I am in a "lab" type condition.
My test speakers have a small resistor across the full range driver. Been working on them for some 5 1/2 years.
Adjusting this small ohmage resistor by a millionth of an ohm is perceived by others who have been helping me with setting the speakers up, working with the crossover etc. That is how open, lacking in sonic signature the setup is. Nice
little "hobby" for someone retired from engineering research and designing etc.
cheers
steve
-
The biggest myth is that there are audio myths that have been conclusively debunked. I'd rather people just be honest and just say IMO or in my experience etc. Because there ain't no audiophile research section at the public library and last I checked Science magazine didn't have TUBES : ARE THEY JUST DISTORTION GENERATORS? on the cover.
And of course engineers/designers/manufacturers do not wish to just give away their proprietary knowledge,
scholarship that gives them the edge in sonic quality. I sure would not, at least for free.
My uncle Aaron developed, from scratch, the "combine" that uses a sickle cutter and auger to reap harvest. I saw him build it in the late 50s, early 60s. Had companies "look it over", companies waited 34 years, patents ran out, then copied Araron's design. Aaron never saw a dime, while he told me he spent 60 grand out of his pocket.
cheers
steve
-
IMO all myths are a matter of opinion.
-
Personally, in my lab, I have found ics make a difference for sure. But then I am in a "lab" type condition.
My test speakers have a small resistor across the full range driver. Been working on them for some 5 1/2 years.
Adjusting this small ohmage resistor by a millionth of an ohm is perceived by others who have been helping me with setting the speakers up, working with the crossover etc. That is how open, lacking in sonic signature the setup is. Nice
little "hobby" for someone retired from engineering research and designing etc.
cheers
steve
Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces)
This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.
-
Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces)
This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.
I probably should not have mentioned being in a lab condition Freo. Probably gave the wrong impression. My fault. Actually, from listening testing, just changing from gold plated all copper phono plugs to rhodium plated made enough sonic difference that I did not wish to play my CD player. The sound thinned out. Back came the gold plated all copper plugs and all is good again. (I don't have any problem with noise, rfi etc.)
I agree, big expensive ics are not needed. I was also able to create a single ended ic that did not alter the sonics, without breaking the bank.
cheers
steve
-
IMO all myths are a matter of opinion.
Each of our realities is only a figment of our imagination too.
-
Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces)
This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.
Again, Benchmark misses three of the important aspects of balanced here.
Certainly, it is better to have common-mode noise rejection. My own DAC is much better using balanced versus SE. However, the devil is in the details. Most modern balanced outputs are solid-state, not driven from a transformer like in the past and in recording studios. This causes balanced to not really be balanced because the two outputs are never actually the same amplitude. It's impossible.
Secondly, because there is no transformer, there is no galvanic isolation between preamp and power amp. This is one of the reasons that I sell my Final Drive transformer isolator. Makes systems sound better. Makes it truly balanced again.
Finally, older balanced systems were typically 600 ohms terminated so the impedance of the cable was not as important. Modern balanced inputs are 50Kohms or higher, so this changes everything. Balanced cables, like RCA cables must have low capacitance to sound good now. Dielectric absorption is audible too.
Three of the advantages of balanced have been eliminated, leaving only the CM noise rejection, which has limits.
Steve N.
-
This is the reason we developed and always use our ABX Comparator. It allows us to do double blind level matched comparisons of almost any aspect of audio performance in a mode that eliminates anticipation bias.
When this is done, many myths evaporate, while some are reinforced. You never can tell just what our results will be when when we just listen with our ears, not our eyes.
One interesting finding is that often we can detect minor differences between different electronic design, but it is much harder to assign better - worse evaluations inasmuch as nothing we have heard really is exactly like live unamplified music. Its kind of a "which is the least worse" question.
The best A-B comparison we ever had was years ago when a gentleman came out to listen to our equipment. He seemed pretty pleased. He then ask us if we would play a record of his. We did. It was a recording of him playing his violin. He still seemed pleased. Then he said he wanted to go out to his car for a minute, and came back in with his violin! He then proceeded to play a duet with himself. Now that was a real comparison. He still liked our equipment enough to make a significant purchase.
Our ABX comparator is still available for sale. It can handle two sources, two preamps, two power amps, and three sets of speakers at the same time, either with or without subwoofers connected too.
Frank
-
I kinda like being fooled. :popcorn:
Its' Magic
-
Each of our realities is only a figment of our imagination too.
Here’s Tom with the weather. :lol:
-
This is the reason we developed and always use our ABX Comparator. It allows us to do double blind level matched comparisons of almost any aspect of audio performance in a mode that eliminates anticipation bias.
So how often does the ABX Comparator send you back to the drawing board because a potentially new circuit doesn’t sound any better than the one in a current model?
If I understand this right, you can pretty much hear the difference between two circuits at the flip of a switch, sort like looking at two pictures of the same thing side by side, but one has more resolution, better focus, color rendition etc?
-
Again, Benchmark misses three of the important aspects of balanced here.
Certainly, it is better to have common-mode noise rejection. My own DAC is much better using balanced versus SE. However, the devil is in the details. Most modern balanced outputs are solid-state, not driven from a transformer like in the past and in recording studios. This causes balanced to not really be balanced because the two outputs are never actually the same amplitude. It's impossible.
Secondly, because there is no transformer, there is no galvanic isolation between preamp and power amp. This is one of the reasons that I sell my Final Drive transformer isolator. Makes systems sound better. Makes it truly balanced again.
Finally, older balanced systems were typically 600 ohms terminated so the impedance of the cable was not as important. Modern balanced inputs are 50Kohms or higher, so this changes everything. Balanced cables, like RCA cables must have low capacitance to sound good now. Dielectric absorption is audible too.
Three of the advantages of balanced have been eliminated, leaving only the CM noise rejection, which has limits.
Steve N.
I think they adequately explained the benefits of balanced vs. unbalanced rather well. The noise floor of the DAC3 and AHB as a combo is better than the vast majority of gear available.
The one set of gear that exceeds the Benchmark set is Devialet. Check out the specs of the Devialet Expert 220 Pro:
Distortion at Full Power: 0,0005% THD+N
Signal-to-noise ratio: 130dB
The idea of inserting the DAC into the amp solves a lot of problems with cables, noise, etc. For digital only playback, only need digital input cables, which balanced cables are not required.
-
I think they adequately explained the benefits of balanced vs. unbalanced rather well. The noise floor of the DAC3 and AHB as a combo is better than the vast majority of gear available.
The one set of gear that exceeds the Benchmark set is Devialet. Check out the specs of the Devialet Expert 220 Pro:
Distortion at Full Power: 0,0005% THD+N
Signal-to-noise ratio: 130dB
The idea of inserting the DAC into the amp solves a lot of problems with cables, noise, etc. For digital only playback, only need digital input cables, which balanced cables are not required.
If all you care about is specs and measurements, you will be missing out on a lot of great audio quality IME.
Steve N.
-
If all you care about is specs and measurements, you will be missing out on a lot of great audio quality IME.
Steve N.
Specs and measurements are vital to getting superior sound. It's not possible for a audio piece to sound good if it does not measure well.
In the case at hand, the two brands mentioned (Benchmark and Devialet) are two of the absolute best regarding measurements and specs. Not surprisingly, both are pretty much universally praised for superior performance by the audio community. Both ALSO employ switching power supplies. Hence, the myth regarding power supplies is proven by specs and measurements to be jut that, a myth.
I have some appreciation for the point you are making, based on my past experience with tube DIY audio. For example, Mundorf coupling caps are very special, and have always been my "go to" cap for that wonderful tube sound. Non-inductive resistors also make a sonic difference, but there is some science behind why they work so well.
-
Specs and measurements are vital to getting superior sound. It's not possible for a audio piece to sound good if it does not measure well.
In the case at hand, the two brands mentioned (Benchmark and Devialet) are two of the absolute best regarding measurements and specs. Not surprisingly, both are pretty much universally praised for superior performance by the audio community.
Universally is a stretch. Lots of DACs that beat the Benchmark IME.
Steve N.
-
In the case at hand, the two brands mentioned (Benchmark and Devialet) are two of the absolute best regarding measurements and specs. Not surprisingly, both are pretty much universally praised for superior performance by the audio community.
Not in my universe. The Benchmark may have superior measurements but the sound is sterile with no magic, which can't be measured but you know it when you hear it. (to paraphrase United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart)
A system with magic is what we all strive for, trying out, buying and selling equipment in search of that elusive goal, some find it and some never do.
Audio Myth #1: A system that has excellent measurements sounds excellent.
-
Universally is a stretch. Lots of DACs that beat the Benchmark IME.
Steve N.
Not based on specs, measurements, and the various reviews, all of which are very positive. This especially true at the price point of the DAC.
While I appreciate your expertise and background, this starts to get into subjective vs. objective evaluations. At that point, one gets into room acoustics with speaker interaction, recording quality, etc.
-
Not in my universe. The Benchmark may have superior measurements but the sound is sterile with no magic, which can't be measured but you know it when you hear it. (to paraphrase United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart)
A system with magic is what we all strive for, trying out, buying and selling equipment in search of that elusive goal, some find it and some never do.
Audio Myth #1: A system that has excellent measurements sounds excellent.
Actually, that is a fact, not a myth. Any system that does not measure well will not sound good. That is reality. If the system doesn't sound good, then one or more aspects are not going to measure well.
IF you are referring to the DAC-1, I would somewhat agree. The DAC-3/AHB combo is a very different beast.
The issue here is that everyone has their own preferences, and those play into what is considered good sound. For example, someone who likes euphonic presentations will be happier with a tube setup over solid state. A highly accurate system will expose poor recordings for what they are, where as a more euphonic system could mask some of the shortfalls. That very well could relate to a lack of magic some folks refer to. Live music is often anything but magic.
Occasionally, I'll use a tube setup with some recordings where the tubes smooth out the rough edges of the recordings. However, with recent hi-res symphonic recordings, only the state of the art hi res playback system will do it justice.
-
OK, now that we have discussed power supplies (switched mode vs linear), and touched on cables (XLR vs. RCA), onto the next set of myths: Vinyl Vs Digital (Stand By For Heavy Rolls :popcorn: )
Please, let's keep it civil. There is room for everyone here.
https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=1&doc_id=1283408# (https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=1&doc_id=1283408#)
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl) (http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl))
-
Not in my universe. The Benchmark may have superior measurements but the sound is sterile with no magic, which can't be measured but you know it when you hear it. (to paraphrase United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart)
A system with magic is what we all strive for, trying out, buying and selling equipment in search of that elusive goal, some find it and some never do.
Audio Myth #1: A system that has excellent measurements sounds excellent.
Agreed!
"If it measures good and sounds bad—it’s bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing."
Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, Chief Engineer, H.H. Scott.
-
onto the next set of myths: Vinyl Vs Digital
I feel the need to include other forms of storage too!
Wax Cylinders, 78's 45's reel to reel, Mono 33 1/3 Stereo 33 1/3, Elcassette, SuperBeta, S-VHS, laser disc, Cassette, 8 track Minidisks, CDs, DVD-A, MP3, downloads, streaming, higher definition downloads, plus in car.... Then comparing live.. where? Concert hall, jazz club, stadium, auditorium, bar, dinner club, living room, kitchen, bedroom, garage.
-
Not based on specs, measurements, and the various reviews, all of which are very positive. This especially true at the price point of the DAC.
While I appreciate your expertise and background, this starts to get into subjective vs. objective evaluations. At that point, one gets into room acoustics with speaker interaction, recording quality, etc.
I modded Benchmark DAC1 for almost 10 years. I reverse-engineered it. I know a lot about their designs.
-
Agreed!
"If it measures good and sounds bad—it’s bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing."
Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, Chief Engineer, H.H. Scott.
Do not think this is still entirely valid. We know a lot more about what to measure and how to measure compared to the golden age of audio. There has been major progress made with all aspects over the years.
The Benchmark DAC3/AHB combination is among the best available hardware to listen to music with. If someone doesn't like the sound, from the combo, OK, fine. It does not make it bad across the board, only to that individual. Based on reviews and current specs, that view is not held by the vast majority of the audio community.
-
I modded Benchmark DAC1 for almost 10 years. I reverse-engineered it. I know a lot about their designs.
Fair enough. I am referring to the DAC3/AHB combination.
-
I feel the need to include other forms of storage too!
Wax Cylinders, 78's 45's reel to reel, Mono 33 1/3 Stereo 33 1/3, Elcassette, SuperBeta, S-VHS, laser disc, Cassette, 8 track Minidisks, CDs, DVD-A, MP3, downloads, streaming, higher definition downloads, plus in car.... Then comparing live.. where? Concert hall, jazz club, stadium, auditorium, bar, dinner club, living room, kitchen, bedroom, garage.
Let's just stick with vinyl for now. :)
Myth: Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps
Frequency Resolution:
Simply not true. It took awhile to fully understand this, but the reality is, digital playback is constructed from specific points, and the waveform is smoothed out to create the sine wave.
Jitter:
With modern equipment, jitter has been reduced to a minuscule amount. The amount of error from a turntable wow and flutter is much more likely to create audible effects
Dynamic Range
Another significant impact of finite quantizing resolution is finite dynamic range. As implemented, the bit depth of CD and DVD digital audio formats accommodates a higher dynamic range than vinyl is capable of. The only signal that can exist 'between the bits' of a CD is drowned out by random noise from the vinyl surface grain.
-
Let's just stick with vinyl for now. :)
Frequency Resolution:
Simply not true. It took awhile to fully understand this, but the reality is, digital playback is constructed from specific points, and the waveform is smoothed out to create the sine wave.
That's the theory. If you sample at at least twice the highest frequency, you theoretically can recreate the original waveform. That's why they use 44.1 kHz, sampling twice 22 kHz.
Is the waveform actually exactly the same as the original? Therein lies the controversy.
-
That's the theory. If you sample at at least twice the highest frequency, you theoretically can recreate the original waveform. That's why they use 44.1 kHz, sampling twice 22 kHz.
Is the waveform actually exactly the same as the original? Therein lies the controversy.
In my experience, the problems come from artifacts created by the processing, and riding on the AC.. Plus jitter adds to the mess.
Fully HALF of he problems are connected to the power supply.. IMO at least.
-
In my experience, the problems come from artifacts created by the processing, and riding on the AC.. Plus jitter adds to the mess.
Fully HALF of he problems are connected to the power supply.. IMO at least.
I think these were issues with older digital systems. I think with more recent equipment offerings, those concerns are a largely a thing of the past.
-
That's the theory. If you sample at at least twice the highest frequency, you theoretically can recreate the original waveform. That's why they use 44.1 kHz, sampling twice 22 kHz.
Is the waveform actually exactly the same as the original? Therein lies the controversy.
From the EE article: (This should answer the sampling questions).
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.
This statement is, of course, mistaken on several points, but remains a popular belief among many non-technical audiophiles and listeners. Obviously it shows a misunderstanding of Nyquist's theorem, but also a failure to recognize - or acknowledge - that the "data present in an analog groove" is limited in any way.
Once again this appears to be a case of music listeners and audiophiles grasping for technical reasons to justify their subjective preferences. Why they persist in doing this I'm not sure - perhaps it has something to do with a need to be "right" - but in the vinyl vs. CD debate this approach is destined to prove unrewarding.
-
Once again this appears to be a case of music listeners and audiophiles grasping for technical reasons to justify their subjective preferences. Why they persist in doing this I'm not sure - perhaps it has something to do with a need to be "right"
In my experience the "need to be right" is as prevalent amongst engineers as it is in audiophiles. Pretty much everyone needs to be right...
Lets be frank; that's what this entire thread is about.
-
In my experience the "need to be right" is as prevalent amongst engineers as it is in audiophiles. Pretty much everyone needs to be right...
Lets be frank; that's what this entire thread is about.
Just to be clear: The need to be right quote was from the article.
The intent of the thread was less about "being right" and more about "being informed" about subjects that the engineering runs counter to legacy convictions (getting outside the swim lane, if you will).
1) I always had a belief that linear power supplies were superior to switched mode power supplies. I thought I was right about that. Well, turns out I was wrong about that "right" assumption. The demonstrations from listening to the Devialet and Benchmark gear forced a change in that thinking. :o
2) I had a belief that any Class D amp was not as good as a linear amp (even though I kept trying to find one I liked). The light weight and portability aspects are appealing. Took awhile, but again, the Devialet proved that there was a method to implement Class D that works as good or better than a straight linear amp. Granted, Devialet is not a straight Class D amp, but does provide current (a variation of feed forward) driven by a Class A voltage amp. I would have never thought that this approach could compete with a Pass amp, as an example. Well, again, that turned out to be not right. :o
3) The digital vs. vinyl arguments will never go away. For years, I believed vinyl was superior to digital. At first, that was largely true. However, time marches on, and digital has progressed a lot. The facts support the digital medium as having a whole host of technical advantages over analog based media.
In summary, the thread is intended to be more open to other audio applications, and to provide some background that is based on engineering that actually can be verified. :thumb:
-
In my experience the "need to be right" is as prevalent amongst engineers as it is in audiophiles. Pretty much everyone needs to be right...
Lets be frank; that's what this entire thread is about.
I suspect this has a gender component as well. Which makes these debates even more tiresome.
-
As far as vinyl vs. digital, let's acknowledge that for some of us, there are collecting/ historical aspects to the love of vinyl. When I go into a large record store and start browsing, I feel a connection with the history of recorded music. The smell, feel, typography, and photography of a vinyl lp can enhance a deeper connection with the recording than pulling up a playlist on a screen. The act of engaging with vinyl recordings and all the rituals it entails can reinforce the likelihood that you'll listen more closely to the music. Those aspects of vinyl appreciation are totally subjective of course, but art appreciation IS a subjective experience. I think that's a large part of the reason younger people are buying vinyl even if they don't appreciate good sound reproduction.
Rather like some prefer a drive in a wooden chassis three wheel Morgan to a quasi-autonomous high tech Tesla I suppose. :lol:
-
wow
-
As far as vinyl vs. digital, let's acknowledge that for some of us, there are collecting/ historical aspects to the love of vinyl. When I go into a large record store and start browsing, I feel a connection with the history of recorded music. The smell, feel, typography, and photography of a vinyl lp can enhance a deeper connection with the recording than pulling up a playlist on a screen. The act of engaging with vinyl recordings and all the rituals it entails can reinforce the likelihood that you'll listen more closely to the music. Those aspects of vinyl appreciation are totally subjective of course, but art appreciation IS a subjective experience. I think that's a large part of the reason younger people are buying vinyl even if they don't appreciate good sound reproduction.
Rather like some prefer a drive in a wooden chassis three wheel Morgan to a quasi-autonomous high tech Tesla I suppose. :lol:
Well said.
-
If all you care about is specs and measurements, you will be missing out on a lot of great audio quality IME.
Steve N.
I will back you in the above position Steve N. In addition for public consumption, using a particular analog design but exchanging different quality parts, and using the specs we generally used in manuals, the specs will remain the same, but the sonics will be quite different.
Cheers
steve
-
As far as vinyl vs. digital, let's acknowledge that for some of us, there are collecting/ historical aspects to the love of vinyl. When I go into a large record store and start browsing, I feel a connection with the history of recorded music. The smell, feel, typography, and photography of a vinyl lp can enhance a deeper connection with the recording than pulling up a playlist on a screen. The act of engaging with vinyl recordings and all the rituals it entails can reinforce the likelihood that you'll listen more closely to the music. Those aspects of vinyl appreciation are totally subjective of course, but art appreciation IS a subjective experience. I think that's a large part of the reason younger people are buying vinyl even if they don't appreciate good sound reproduction.
Rather like some prefer a drive in a wooden chassis three wheel Morgan to a quasi-autonomous high tech Tesla I suppose. :lol:
As one who grew up listening to records, (I'm 64 and started collecting records at 14) I have none of the feelings toward vinyl you describe. Although I do occasionally put a record on the turntable for a listen, I don't feel any closer to the music when doing so. Nor do I feel any differently about an album found in a record store vs an album purchased through Discogs.
Some of the most moving musical experiences I've had during my life happened while listening to a crappy car radio. It's the music, not the medium as far as I'm concerned.
As for your auto analogy, I suppose the Morgan would be more fun ONCE. For my daily driver though, I'd take the Tesla.
-
As one who grew up listening to records, (I'm 64 and started collecting records at 14) I have none of the feelings toward vinyl you describe. Although I do occasionally put a record on the turntable for a listen, I don't feel any closer to the music when doing so. Nor do I feel any differently about an album found in a record store vs an album purchased through Discogs.
Some of the most moving musical experiences I've had during my life happened while listening to a crappy car radio. It's the music, not the medium as far as I'm concerned.
As for your auto analogy, I suppose the Morgan would be more fun ONCE. For my daily driver though, I'd take the Tesla.
Well stated.
For me, the migration to digital was fueled by migration to Classical music. The noise floor and lack of dynamics from large complex symphonic performances was a deal breaker for me with vinyl.
I totally get why some folks prefer the sound of vinyl, as it does have unique sound characteristics. Occasionally, I'll connect up a tube preamp/amp setup and enjoy the sounds that tubes provide. For me, it's more about the hobby aspect and the DIY interaction than measurements/specs, though one strives to get measurements as best as possible.
-
I will back you in the above position Steve N. In addition for public consumption, using a particular analog design but exchanging different quality parts, and using the specs we generally used in manuals, the specs will remain the same, but the sonics will be quite different.
Cheers
steve
I've experienced this first hand with DIY tube preamps and amps. For example, changing out resistors to non-inductive types can make a difference sonically. Coupling caps can make a big difference with the sonic presentation. The quality of audio output transformers can make a difference as well.
-
Power cords is another highly debated area in audio. Some folks believe that after market power cords will improve the system. Other folks obviously do not subscribe to this.
Rather than re-hash the issue here, the topic was discussed at length in this thread:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=163708.0 (https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=163708.0)
-
I've experienced this first hand with DIY tube preamps and amps. For example, changing out resistors to non-inductive types can make a difference sonically. Coupling caps can make a big difference with the sonic presentation. The quality of audio output transformers can make a difference as well.
One can also alter the sonics by simply altering the power supply itself, leaving the other parts intact. The specs will measure the same. The problem of power cords, rectifier tubes, power transformer making a sonic difference can all be eliminated by a properly designed filtering system. The preamp is easy, the class AB amplifier is much more difficult.
However, many like to manipulate the sonics via the power transformer, rectifier, power cord etc for the subjective qualities. No point, just an observation.
Another observation over the decades of research is that it is virtually impossible to design an accurate "sounding" component by just specs. It is extremely difficult even with specialized, proprietary listening tests.
-----
For general consumption; let's take a typical frequency response spec, say +/- 0,1db from 20-20khz. That means the frequency response deviation, the amplitude deviation from 20hz to 20khz is only in the -54db range; basically not good. As one can see, that typical spec. given for components is not much help.
cheers
steve
-
I've had a look through the archives of Hi-Fi News & Record Review, the British magazine, and can't find it, but I do remember them doing a test about 25 years ago in response to the apparently paradoxical disparity between the perceived performance of two really good sounding amplifiers and their measured performance which was really poor. The amps were an Ongaku and a Jadis.
The result of this fairly comprehensive teast was that perceived sound quality had surprisingly little to do with most measurable forms of distortion, like harmonic and intermodulation. In fact the only measurable parameters that seemed to correlate with sonic quality seemed to be
1. speed of settling time after a clipping event, and
2. benign reaction to RF contamination of the input signal.
I think Martin Colloms was one of the testers and the other was a similarly respected man.
-
I've had a look through the archives of Hi-Fi News & Record Review, the British magazine, and can't find it, but I do remember them doing a test about 25 years ago in response to the apparently paradoxical disparity between the perceived performance of two really good sounding amplifiers and their measured performance which was really poor. The amps were an Ongaku and a Jadis.
The result of this fairly comprehensive teast was that perceived sound quality had surprisingly little to do with most measurable forms of distortion, like harmonic and intermodulation. In fact the only measurable parameters that seemed to correlate with sonic quality seemed to be
1. speed of settling time after a clipping event, and
2. benign reaction to RF contamination of the input signal.
I think Martin Colloms was one of the testers and the other was a similarly respected man.
Given that these are two expensive (and maybe low power) tube amps, it's not surprising that they wouldn't measure all that well. Single Ended Triode tube amps tend to exhibit this behavior. It really depends on one's perception of constitutes good sound. SET triode amps can be very seductive sounding. Having said that, SET amps are not for everyone.
One tube amp from days gone by that actually measured well for the time was the Harmon Kardon Citation II.
I can't think of a single solid state amp that sounds great but measures poorly.
-
If all you care about is specs and measurements, you will be missing out on a lot of great audio quality IME.
Steve N.
Hey!
+1 on this. I remembered when I was younger starting to get into audio I would be impressed when I see something with excellent specs and measurements. I was more about more power, lower THD must be more accurate and that would mean better sound.
Well, now I have SET amps (18wpc and 40wpc), 6" Single Driver speakers, tubed pre, CD with simple NOS DAC, and turntable. I'm sure my system measure like crap on the scope but to my ears they sound right. I do enjoy my system now as much I would when I hear live music at the Carnegie Hall, Met Opera at the Lincoln Center or even when I hear live music play around NYC.... well, almost as much to be honest since live music is still better. Funny that I once have a 250wpc SS amp and a pair of speaker with massive driver area, the Maggie 1.5.
Anyway, I still believe in spec and measurement, we need this to make sure that the design is stable and won't blow up! Other than for me now is #%&* the measurement and THD. If the sound is right to my ears and it won't blow up I'm good! Now as I'm getting older I value emotionally correct more than technically correct.
Buddy
-
There are a lot of options and choices when putting together a good sounding audio system. I get why single ended triode (SET) amps have appeal. They tend to focus on the mid-range (presence) region, which much of the musical information resides. One of the big reasons so many audiophiles still love tubes is because tubes just seem to reproduce this range with more natural sounding timbres over solid state. (In general, there are always exceptions).
The limitation with SET is one cannot get the frequency extremes reproduced accurately. A single 6" driver is simply not going to provide the lower bass registers or the upper frequencies with any real authority. For some audiophiles, that is not important to them. For others, it's a deal breaker. SET's also tend to be low power, so the speakers need to be real efficient to get live music levels.
For me, in order to get close to a live symphony, large floor standing speakers and lots of wattage is the way to go. The tube amps I have on hand are higher wattage units in pentode, which is needed to drive the speakers.
The best overall sound I've achieved with the speakers has been with Devialet integrated units. They are one of the very few SS setups that have a pristine sounding presence region, a dead quiet background, and support the frequency extremes without compromise.
-
There are a lot of options and choices when putting together a good sounding audio system. I get why single ended triode (SET) amps have appeal. They tend to focus on the mid-range (presence) region, which much of the musical information resides. One of the big reasons so many audiophiles still love tubes is because tubes just seem to reproduce this range with more natural sounding timbres over solid state. (In general, there are always exceptions).
The limitation with SET is one cannot get the frequency extremes reproduced accurately. A single 6" driver is simply not going to provide the lower bass registers or the upper frequencies with any real authority. For some audiophiles, that is not important to them. For others, it's a deal breaker. SET's also tend to be low power, so the speakers need to be real efficient to get live music levels.
For me, in order to get close to a live symphony, large floor standing speakers and lots of wattage is the way to go. The tube amps I have on hand are higher wattage units in pentode, which is needed to drive the speakers.
The best overall sound I've achieved with the speakers has been with Devialet integrated units. They are one of the very few SS setups that have a pristine sounding presence region, a dead quiet background, and support the frequency extremes without compromise.
I don't have any problem getting the full frequency spectrum from my SET monoblocks. 35W each. Better, tighter bass than a 600W SS monoblock and better highs as well. No limitations that I can hear.
Maybe you don't have the right SETs for your speakers.
Steve N.
-
I don't have any problem getting the full frequency spectrum from my SET monoblocks. 35W each. Better, tighter bass than a 600W SS monoblock and better highs as well. No limitations that I can hear.
Maybe you don't have the right SETs for your speakers.
Steve N.
There is a misunderstanding. The statement was in reference to the previous post with a single 6" driver. If one has speakers specifically designed for a full frequency that are very efficient, then of course the full frequency spectrum can be achieved with a low powered SET amp. Those are very rare and very expensive.
A 600W monoblock does not say much, outside of the fact it's got lots of power. A pair of Devialet Expert Pro amps (in mono) will in all probability sound better than the vast majority of systems put together, regardless of price. And, it Won't run out of power when playing back a Mahler Symphony at realistic concert hall levels. (Not sure 35 watts will be able to achieve that).
-
A 600W monoblock does not say much, outside of the fact it's got lots of power. A pair of Devialet Expert Pro amps (in mono) will in all probability sound better than the vast majority of systems put together, regardless of price. And, it Won't run out of power when playing back a Mahler Symphony at realistic concert hall levels. (Not sure 35 watts will be able to achieve that).
And here goes another myth.... The idea that you can fit the acoustic output of a 60 person plus orchestra into a typical residential room at full tilt is inane. Most room can't even support a single piano at full bore! Then there's the idea that you can fully replicate the acoustic wave of said orchestra coming out of a couple of relatively tiny apertures. Such a wave is so distorted that it's actually a miracle that it's recognizable.
And yes, with a 100 dB sensitivity speaker, 35 watts would work just fine in most rooms.
-
Most room can't even support a single piano at full bore! Then there's the idea that you can fully replicate the acoustic wave of said orchestra coming out of a couple of relatively tiny apertures. Such a wave is so distorted that it's actually a miracle that it's recognizable.
And yet the music is not only easily recognizable on a system, but on a truly excellent system the instruments sound uncanny accurate to the real thing, such as piano, violin, banjo, french horn, clarinet etc. It can be done.
cheers
steve
-
And yet the music is not only easily recognizable on a system, but on a truly excellent system the instruments sound uncanny accurate to the real thing, such as piano, violin, banjo, french horn, clarinet etc. It can be done.
cheers
steve
Yes, IMO on a good system you may get close and recognizable but it can't be done. The hifi "system" is not a piano, not a banjo, not a french horn etc. in your room. So that basic logic says it can't be done.
-
And here goes another myth.... The idea that you can fit the acoustic output of a 60 person plus orchestra into a typical residential room at full tilt is inane. Most room can't even support a single piano at full bore! Then there's the idea that you can fully replicate the acoustic wave of said orchestra coming out of a couple of relatively tiny apertures. Such a wave is so distorted that it's actually a miracle that it's recognizable.
And yes, with a 100 dB sensitivity speaker, 35 watts would work just fine in most rooms.
I understand your point regarding the orchestra playback, but I can state that my current setup can get fairly close once I got a pair of Devialet amps in mono. The large German floor-standing speakers are pretty flat from 20-20Khz, and are in the low 90's regarding sensitivity. While they sound just fine with a moderately powered tube am setup, they really come alive with 500 watts available from the amps. The differences are readily noticeable when large crescendos and dynamic contrasts are present in the recording.
Finding a 100db sensitive speaker that is flat down to 20 Hz is a very rare and likely expensive endeavor. There are sound engineering reasons why most large multi driver speakers that are fairly flat with deep bass extension are nominal 4 ohms, and tend not to be as sensitive.
-
Yes, IMO on a good system you may get close and recognizable but it can't be done. The hifi "system" is not a piano, not a banjo, not a french horn etc. in your room. So that basic logic says it can't be done.
FWIW, I remember reading about demonstrations Paul Klipsch used to give back in the 50's regarding live vs. playback of recordings. He would use the Klipschorns against a live performance, and was able to achieve a result where the audience was not able to easily tell the difference.
-
AR used to do the same thing, demonstrating how their system provided playback (on a mid fifties tape system lacking even NR) 'indistinguishable' from the live sound. Of course, the players had to back off on their dynamic contrasts, but OK... So I guess storage/amplification technology was as good as it could get already and speaker technology didn't need to move past the AR-3a?
A couple years ago, AudioNote UK had a cello player with them who did a live vs recorded demo using the same cello as was used on the recording. Although the system gave a good account of itself, you could tell the difference, as you would have been able to do with any system there including the ridiculous million-dollar system that (to my ears) was easily bettered for musicality by many systems there at five cents on the dollar. The cellist also played a 'soft' piece as was done in the AR demos.
Bottom line, 'good' is here, reality is not, cost be damned.
-
In the AR tests, they put the speakers on stage in an auditorium. Hardly a domestic situation. What room did the Klipsch test use? Brian Cheney did similar tests, but again, look at the room size.
-
AR used to do the same thing, demonstrating how their system provided playback (on a mid fifties tape system lacking even NR) 'indistinguishable' from the live sound.
...and Edison did the same in 1918:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-live-versus-recorded-listening.html
-
...and Edison did the same in 1918:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-live-versus-recorded-listening.html (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-live-versus-recorded-listening.html)
Interesting read. Thanks for posting the link.
-
In the AR tests, they put the speakers on stage in an auditorium. Hardly a domestic situation. What room did the Klipsch test use? Brian Cheney did similar tests, but again, look at the room size.
Kind of like trying to tell an Elvis impressionist from the real thing at 50 yards. We listen to music in small venues up-close and low-level.
-
Yes, IMO on a good system you may get close and recognizable but it can't be done. The hifi "system" is not a piano, not a banjo, not a french horn etc. in your room. So that basic logic says it can't be done.
I would have to disagree with your logic. Freo mentions one example, and I was present at another. I was attending "The Show" in Las Vegas some years ago, and was invited by Misty River Band to a Von Scheikert experiment. Misty River Band played live and was recorded at that time. The recorded music was then played back by Von Scheikert's system and was extremely accurate, as is my own home/lab system.
The problem still remains in that nearly all components are not accurate, even though the published specs seem excellent. But specs can be deceiving. As one simple example, +/- 0,1db from 20-20khz means that the signal amplitude deviation, the frequency response can deviate in the -54db range, which is easily perceived, and thus quite poor. That is just one reason why so many components have similar/same specs and yet sound different. Nothing magical about that, just science.
cheers
steve
-
Kind of like trying to tell an Elvis impressionist from the real thing at 50 yards. We listen to music in small venues up-close and low-level.
Exactly my original point. Therefore you don't need 600 watts to attempt to get "realistic concert levels" of a Mahler symphony in a domestic setting. The majority of domestic rooms cannot support the energy of a full tilt orchestra. Therefore you miniaturize the scale and level. My original statement holds.
-
Exactly my original point. Therefore you don't need 600 watts to attempt to get "realistic concert levels" of a Mahler symphony in a domestic setting. The majority of domestic rooms cannot support the energy of a full tilt orchestra. Therefore you miniaturize the scale and level. My original statement holds.
Have to respectfully disagree (to a point). When reproducing dynamic peaks that can be as high as 24 db, there is NO WAY a 35 watt amp is going to reproduce a major symphonic piece accurately with the vast majority of speakers available. Tube amps will provide a "gentle clip" when this occurs, so it is not all that offensive to the listener, but one will hear the compression/limitation. OTOH, SS amps clip hard, so one needs more power and headroom to avoid this. When I listen to large scale symphonic music, I don't listen to them at a low level. I listen to them at a moderate level that is close to the level I would hear at a live hall (such as the Vets in Providence, RI). That "requires" a setup that has a full frequency response and enough power to reproduce accurately. In my case, speakers that are 20-20 KHz, low 90's sensitivity, and 500 watts per channel at 6 ohms.
Here is a link that provides some background:
https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/audio/we_need_more_power_captain_but_how_just_how_much_amplifier_power_is_needed/ (https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/audio/we_need_more_power_captain_but_how_just_how_much_amplifier_power_is_needed/)
-
Go to Carnegie Hall and listen to a full Orchestra then go home and listen to same piece of music. Then you tell me. Sorry but no Cigar.
charles
-
I have one to chew on. Measurements alone are not responsible for good reproduced sound. Part selection has an affect on sound. :popcorn:
charles
-
Let's all agree that our beloved hobby will never get to the point that a home domestic playback system will be able to sound exactly the same as a live concert hall. Now, having said that, one can get pretty close if the room size is adequate, sufficient power is provided to the speakers, and the speakers can reproduce the full frequency spectrum.
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) has changed the game significantly regarding the ability to reproduce recordings. The Devialet Expert/Expert Pro employ extensive DSP and SHARC technology, which allows for the units to provide near unparalleled sound quality with some of the best measurements in the industry. Until you hear one, it's hard to quantify just how much of an difference (improvement) provided by this approach to playback electronics. This goes well above using "better parts" (but I do agree for analog amps better parts do help).
-
There is a misunderstanding. The statement was in reference to the previous post with a single 6" driver. If one has speakers specifically designed for a full frequency that are very efficient, then of course the full frequency spectrum can be achieved with a low powered SET amp. Those are very rare and very expensive.
A 600W monoblock does not say much, outside of the fact it's got lots of power. A pair of Devialet Expert Pro amps (in mono) will in all probability sound better than the vast majority of systems put together, regardless of price. And, it Won't run out of power when playing back a Mahler Symphony at realistic concert hall levels. (Not sure 35 watts will be able to achieve that).
Hey!
Well, that would be me isn't it? Believe it or not my 6" Fostex in my back horn loaded in my room with room load do go down to about lower to mid 30's. No I didn't use any calibrated measuring equipment but by using Rat Shack and test CD and of course my own ears. This actually surprised many people you have heard my system. True that it is not a flat respond or down to 20hz.
But do I feel like I'm missing out much if anything? Not really. Of all my years being into audio stuffs. I have heard so many systems, both at all those audio shows I've attended and more importantly thanks to the disbanded NYAR group many meeting back in the days, many systems in actual home setting. And that really make me realized that high wattage, big speaker, expensive system mean nothing to me if it can't reproduce the emotional of the music itself. Every system have strengths and weakness, and it is all depend what you value most when you listen to music. And my system strengths outweighed the weaknesses for me and this let me enjoy the music in an intimate way... well, at least for me.
Anyway, I noticed that you have mentioned and praised the Devialet amp and your flat down to 20hz speaker many times in this post and another that you have started about your Devialet amp...
Let's all agree that our beloved hobby will never get to the point that a home domestic playback system will be able to sound exactly the same as a live concert hall. Now, having said that, one can get pretty close if the room size is adequate, sufficient power is provided to the speakers, and the speakers can reproduce the full frequency spectrum.
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) has changed the game significantly regarding the ability to reproduce recordings. The Devialet Expert/Expert Pro employ extensive DSP and SHARC technology, which allows for the units to provide near unparalleled sound quality with some of the best measurements in the industry. Until you hear one, it's hard to quantify just how much of an difference (improvement) provided by this approach to playback electronics. This goes well above using "better parts" (but I do agree for analog amps better parts do help).
Well, congratulation that you found the best high power amps with speakers that's flat down to 20hz. OK, I'm going to leave this post now and go spend time enjoying musics on obsolete vinyl LPs play on 1972 turntable and my low power SET amps that measure like crap with 6" driver speakers that can't do a flat 20-20k. Cheer! :beer:
Buddy
-
Hey!
Well, that would be me isn't it? Believe it or not my 6" Fostex in my back horn loaded in my room with room load do go down to about lower to mid 30's. No I didn't use any calibrated measuring equipment but by using Rat Shack and test CD and of course my own ears. This actually surprised many people you have heard my system. True that it is not a flat respond or down to 20hz.
But do I feel like I'm missing out much if anything? Not really. Of all my years being into audio stuffs. I have heard so many systems, both at all those audio shows I've attended and more importantly thanks to the disbanded NYAR group many meeting back in the days, many systems in actual home setting. And that really make me realized that high wattage, big speaker, expensive system mean nothing to me if it can't reproduce the emotional of the music itself. Every system have strengths and weakness, and it is all depend what you value most when you listen to music. And my system strengths outweighed the weaknesses for me and this let me enjoy the music in an intimate way... well, at least for me.
Anyway, I noticed that you have mentioned and praised the Devialet amp and your flat down to 20hz speaker many times in this post and another that you have started about your Devialet amp...
Well, congratulation that you found the best high power amps with speakers that's flat down to 20hz. OK, I'm going to leave this post now and go spend time enjoying musics on obsolete vinyl LPs play on 1972 turntable and my low power SET amps that measure like crap with 6" driver speakers that can't do a flat 20-20k. Cheer! :beer:
Buddy
You are farther along than many of us in this hobby. The fact that you truly enjoy what you have is the single most important aspect of this hobby. Only recently have I come to appreciate this. BTW, some of the most seductive sounding systems I've heard are low power SET amps with large horn drivers.
Cheers! :beer:
-
OK, let's move on. Found this link regarding audio myths:
http://sound.whsites.net/articles/myths.html (http://sound.whsites.net/articles/myths.html)
So have a read and let folks know what you think!
-
Yes, IMO on a good system you may get close and recognizable but it can't be done. The hifi "system" is not a piano, not a banjo, not a french horn etc. in your room. So that basic logic says it can't be done.
Forgot to mention I own and play a violin, a banjo visited my venue/home, and have a piano near by for comparison.
cheers
steve
-
OK, let's move on. Found this link regarding audio myths:
http://sound.whsites.net/articles/myths.html (http://sound.whsites.net/articles/myths.html)
So have a read and let folks know what you think!
Some comments regarding the first section. I did not read any further as the errors in the first section are
applied to the rest of the article, thus rendering the conclusions non-scientific. That does not mean all the
conclusions are incorrect, just not arrived at scientifically. His comment concerning counter-arguments
to the testing procedure being trite is completely without foundation and is non-scientific.
1. His claim of one db is probably applicable for spl, but not even anywhere close for frequency response deviations.
2. His understanding of testing is extremely limited, being limited to only "sight" as a confound variable (or variable confound).
3. Again, the rest of the paper's conclusions is based upon listening testing errors, thus non-scientific. (I hope I did not break any rules on the forum.)
cheers
steve
-
The fact that you truly enjoy what you have is the single most important aspect of this hobby. Only recently have I come to appreciate this.
Cheers! :beer:
Agreed. At some point you just need to kick back and enjoy some tunes. If you want something that sounds like live music... listen to some. Problem is, the equipment industry needs you to become vaguely dissatisfied with your equipment.... regularly.... in order to survive (since the 'hobby' isn't growing.) Perhaps you become more adept at hearing imperfections over time. However, whatever you replace it with will have its own imperfections, so you may be back where you started after a few years. Rinse and repeat.
I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.
I read the linked article and it was interesting. Not in 100% agreement, but there are truths in it.
-
2. His understanding of testing is extremely limited, being limited to only "sight" as a confound variable (or variable confound).
That's rubbish - read the first paragraph of the conclusions again.
-
I love switching power supplies!!!!!
My day job includes measuring radiated and conducted RF interference from electronic equipment for commercial and military aircraft. When the equipment has emissions greater than the limit I have to troubleshoot it and isolate the source of the emissions. Then the designers are called in and we work on a solution.
Sometimes the problem is improper assembly. That is easy to fix.
Sometimes the solution can be shielding which is not good for airplanes because it add weight. An extra pound on a commercial airplane costs the operator $5,000/yr so not a happy solution.
Shunting or diverting the energy to ground (In theory of course as there is no 'ground' on an airplane. LOL) requires capacitors (expensive) and/or ferrites (expensive and heavy).
Or, as is usually the case, redesigning the circuit to ameliorate the energy at the source, which 4 times out of 5, is a switching power source.
Of course I get paid for the troubleshooting, convincing the designer that yes, the interference really is coming from his 'beautiful' switching power supply, working with certain aspects of the design, the delays while the design is being improved and of course re-testing.
Recent events such as these are paying for my 'new' amplifier so yes I 'love' switching power supplies.
Back to one of Benchmark's assertions that a switching power supply can be made to perform well. I agree, at least conditionally. The part they leave out is that if you spend and equal amount of effort designing a linear power supply the linear power supply will be better, much better.
I have access to world class power supply designers. They are my colleagues and friends. The new linear power supply I am building for my phono preamp is linear. It will have around 1 uV ripple at 28 VDC, 100 mA output.
-
Agreed. At some point you just need to kick back and enjoy some tunes. If you want something that sounds like live music... listen to some. Problem is, the equipment industry needs you to become vaguely dissatisfied with your equipment.... regularly.... in order to survive (since the 'hobby' isn't growing.) Perhaps you become more adept at hearing imperfections over time. However, whatever you replace it with will have its own imperfections, so you may be back where you started after a few years. Rinse and repeat.
I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.
I read the linked article and it was interesting. Not in 100% agreement, but there are truths in it.
So let's ask: What areas do you take issue with? For argument's sake, I think the write-up is pretty spot-on. The only quibble I have is the area regarding caps. I feel that based on experience with restoring and working on tube gear, good quality caps can make an improvement in sound quality. I'm partial to Mundorf caps for tube amps. Still, I think I get his point on the issue.
Outside of that, the arguments presented are pretty compelling.
-
I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.
I don't see it that way myself. That's kind of like saying anyone who spends $500k. on a Ferrari can't be true automotive enthusiast. I'm sure there are more than a few who spend large amounts on audio primarily as a status display. On the other hand, some people with large incomes just have great interest in reproducing music well. $200k spent on an audio system by someone that makes 20 million a year is proportionally less than what most of of us spend on our systems. I also don't see anything wrong with appreciating fine craftsmanship if you can afford it.
Plus, just as technology trickles down from über expensive cars to average cars, one could make the argument that some aspects of music reproduction technology have enjoyed similar benefits from trickle down. Speakers and digital reproduction come foremost to mind.
-
All excellent points, especially the last. The first adopters are the ones that make the R&D done to design the top of the line equipment economically feasible. This technology eventually gets implemented in the lower cost units.
-
That's rubbish - read the first paragraph of the conclusions again.
If that is your opinion, fine.
I addressed my post on page 5 to the first paragraph of the article, and point 2 is absolutely
scientifically correct. I just read the first paragraph of his conclusion in the article, and his
disparaging comments are as error filled and obnoxious as the initial paragraphs of the article. May
I be a direct as you are? After all, we are looking for the truth.
If I may, let me ask some questions in general?
1. I have yet to see proof that ABing 10 times in a row equates to normal listening, or just 1 or 2 abs
when comparing. Do you have such proof and would you provide it here?
2. I have yet to see this or other article being cleared by any Medical Organizations/hospitals.
3. The way testing is described, via the article and other "audio" posts/publications, is based upon
input data provided via AB or ABX "back and forths". (The states are hidden via double blind, so I
just used the simple term.)
As such, only "sight" is ever mentioned as a confound variable. This confound variable is dealt
with so as to prevent "sight" from influencing the input data.
The input data is used for calculating the confidence level, usually 95%.
Why is he not listing any other confound variables? I won't list any till you do.
4. I have one sample problem for you or others to consider, if I may. If a group of test subjects is at
a venue, some 50% of test subjects are in areas of increasing and maximum bass nodes,
and 50% are in decreasing and minimal bass nodes. Under what conditions would one obtain
a 95% confidence level?
By the way, if he believes mylar capacitors sound the same as polypropylene capacitors, well.....
Cheers.
steve
-
So who here has seriously actually used a competent double blind comparator to evaluate audio equipment?
We use ours all the time and it really helps us refine our equipment.
Often we do not get the answers we were hoping for! However, when we get repeatable results we know that it is a lot better than wishful thinking.
It is just a very useful tool, prevents mistakes and bad ideas from being passed on to you.
Frank