[*Scotty*]

Daygloworange,I already told you there was one good sounding transistor in the bunch, which could be determined by listening. All of the transistors were deemed adequate by their manufacturers and there is no economic incentive to the manufacturers to make a good sounding transistor. Transistors have many applications outside of audio in which how they sound
has no bearing on their suitability for a particular job. Unfortunately serendipity rather than applied science is the primary operator when it comes to finding good sounding components to build into a circuit in most cases.   
Scotty

[jon_010101]

Daygloworange,I already told you there was one good sounding transistor in the bunch, which could be determined by listening. All of the transistors were deemed adequate by their manufacturers and there is no economic incentive to the manufacturers to make a good sounding transistor.

This isn't magic though!    Transistor parameters vary dramatically from part-to-part, requiring careful sorting and matching just like with tubes (and even more-so in most cases).  Manufacturers of equipment need to spend big money to select and match transistors, especially for use in audio amplifiers and analog circuits.  This is very important for "pairs", but also for individual devices to be used in a circuit -- if the transistors don't match the engineering expectations, then the circuit values will need to be adjusted to accommodate.  Doing it by ear is just a crude solution when detailed measurements are not possible. 

[Canyoneagle]

From the listening chair, I really don't worry about the Q factors, physics and such (as I once did).  I appreciate the fact that someone has studied the science in order to bring forth the component - audio is inherently technical.
My earlier post was from the perspective of a music lover, not that of a component designer.  I don't ignore the fact that science has brought about the technology we enjoy in the form of audio - I just don't care about the technology.  What matters to me is my own experience with what is produced by it.  Paridoxical, yes.  That is life.

As far as instruments are concerned, consider the study (I don't have a link, sorry, don't flame me) wherein a didgeridoo (termite-hollowed eucalyptis wind instrument used for at least 40,000 years by Aboriginal Australians) was measured for its sonic characteristics when played by an accomplished player.  It turned out to have far more complexity acoustically (overtones, interaction with the physiology of the player, etc) than a Stradivarious violin played by a virtuoso.
What's my point? sometimes I think science (and the mind that created it) is placed on a pedestal and ignores some of the subtler masterpieces that have existed in our midst (that we largely ignore).  A butterfly wing.  The hollow bones of birds.  Feathers.  The first buds of Spring.  Flowers.  Our own human bodies.  Spider's silk.  Water.  Weather.  You get the point.....

As close to engineered perfection as we strive to attain in our fabricated world, we are unlikely to ever surpass the real thing (in this case, unamplified live music).  This is the distinction I was alluding to earlier.  I am no longer an "audiophile" - I do not seek engineered perfection in the system.  I simply seek enjoyment of the music, and have found that certain types of components "synergize" (compliment each other's inherent flaws) in a way that involves me more as a listener.

..............And I play the didgeridoo, having once been a trumpet player.    

Enjoy the music!!!!!

Warmly,
Michael

Yeah....I don't buy into that at all. Technological advancements are based in science, not art.

It's not magic. Calling it art is conjuring and attemptimg to shroud the science in mystery.

Synergy in audio, to me, is just ameliorating deficiencies to suit someone's tastes, which is fine, but let's call it was it is.

Musical instruments are made better sounding today than they were in the past due to science and understanding of materials and physics. Before, development and advancement was through trial and error. It was stumbled upon, and became known as art. It's not talent, it's knowledge.

Ask any modder who modifies gear, and his mods are rooted in his firm grasp of science, and sonically, is shows.

I own numerous guitars and vintage amps. They are all modded to some degree, and perform better than stock. All the mods are done by people who know science very well, and the mods are rooted in science.

I mod my own guitars. I can tell you what I do, why I do it, and know what the results are going to do. Any variables in sound can be attributed to the fact that they're made of wood, and that no two trees are the same.

And before you say that which instrument sounds better is a subjective thing...

Audio is no different. There have been, over the last number of years, a number of vast improvements in driver technology. Motor structures, materials etc... Science and technology is making better transformers, capacitors, inductors, wire etc....

I see science as the leader in advancing audio, not art....

Keep in mind, it's science that invented all the different brushes, paints and canvas that artists use.

Science is also what created all the instruments musicians play, not art.

Cheers

[*Scotty*]

jon_010101, definitely no magic involved,but you do have to listen to the circuit and chosing the best sounding parts is integral to the design process. You can design on the back of a napkin or on a computer screen but eventually you have to build the circuit and listen to it. A good example is the difference the dielectric can make in the sound of a transistor. The glass encapsulated metal can transistors are noticeably better sounding than plastic transistors and of course those are ones that have been discontinued for many applications. This just one example of no available alternative to a discontinued part and all you can do is take the hit and move on.  Metal can versions of small signal transistors and power transistors have disappeared in the last decade replaced by the cheaper to manufacture plastic versions.
Scotty

[jon_010101]

jon_010101, definitely no magic involved,but you do have to listen to the circuit and chosing the best sounding parts is integral to the design process. You can design on the back of a napkin or on a computer screen but eventually you have to build the circuit and listen to it.

Hi Scotty, my argument is only that you could get the same results by measuring them before you install them into the circuit.  If you have 5 "identical" part number transistors, and one sounds better, it's likely you could also single it out just by measuring it in a test circuit.  Usually if something sounds good, there is a reason.  Comparing unmatched transistors is just like biasing your tube amp for one tube and then removing it and inserting another!  Results won't be good in most cases 

Somewhat related... is the example of tube rolling.  Say that one has a single-ended, zero-feedback, tube gain stage.  They designed it with a certain tube type, of a certain brand, from a certain production run, exhibiting specific characteristics which might vary by 10-20%, and then optimized the circuit for minimal distortion.  Now, say you put in a different tube.  Result: completely different sound, completely different measurable amplifier characteristics.  You can find a significant variation in distortion (and distortion spectrum) from tube-to-tube, just because the circuit was optimized with whatever the designer had on hand.  This sort of variance is why zero-negative-feedback tube amps make audiophiles crazy

[BrianM]

Before Western "science" or the scientific method was a concept there were musical instruments and painters.

No!  Western science had "been a concept," as we understand it today, at least since Aristotle.  Musicians, painters, mathematicians, astrologers, philosophers, etc. tended to consider themselves a part of that tradition.  Those disciplines were all "the humanities" and the "Renaissance man" tried to be knowledgeable in all of them.  The Renaissance was about rediscovery as much as new discovery, since medieval science had basically cauterized into people thinking everything had already been worked out, and being ignorant of the scientific method pursued by people like Aristotle 1500 years before.  Anyways....

I think that you are putting scientists and  "science" on a pedestal like it's just another religion. I believe the line between art and science is not absolute but they're constantly mingling to the benefit of both . In science there has been intuitive leaps that resulted in great discoveries. Sort of like great art. eh??

I agree that they intermingle - that's exactly why the Romantics sought to make the distinction they did, because they recognized (or believed) that such things weren't ALL scientific.  But in the hierarchy of things that require individually inspired genius, building audio gear is very low, as is listening to audio gear to determine what merit it has.  Just because something is "subjective" doesn't make it "art."  IMO we should pursue a scientific path for how people hear things and what they listen for -- pursue it alongside everyone's current subjective preferences, that is, and not at the expense of them.

[goldlizsts]

Without reading first all the postings before mine, most important, IMH, is the "final" sound one hears.  I'd work backwards from there with each variable along the chain. 

[miklorsmith]

A piece has to be well engineered to have a chance of being good.  The designer has to understand that's not the end of it to have a chance to be great.

[satfrat]

Without reading first all the postings before mine, most important, IMH, is the "final" sound one hears.  I'd work backwards from there with each variable along the chain. 

Without clearing all the "noise" from both within and outside the component & chain,,,, you'll never have any concept of what that "final" sound could actually consist of so there's nothing to go back to cuz your dead right out of the gate. No one can, regardless of how much has been spent on a system unless of course these conditions have been met in manufacturing,,,,  which I hardly doubt. 

Cheers,
Robin

[rajacat]

Before Western "science" or the scientific method was a concept there were musical instruments and painters.

No!  Western science had "been a concept," as we understand it today, at least since Aristotle.  Musicians, painters, mathematicians, astrologers, philosophers, etc. tended to consider themselves a part of that tradition.  Those disciplines were all "the humanities" and the "Renaissance man" tried to be knowledgeable in all of them.  The Renaissance was about rediscovery as much as new discovery, since medieval science had basically cauterized into people thinking everything had already been worked out, and being ignorant of the scientific method pursued by people like Aristotle 1500 years before.  Anyways....

I think that you are putting scientists and  "science" on a pedestal like it's just another religion. I believe the line between art and science is not absolute but they're constantly mingling to the benefit of both . In science there has been intuitive leaps that resulted in great discoveries. Sort of like great art. eh??

I agree that they intermingle - that's exactly why the Romantics sought to make the distinction they did, because they recognized (or believed) that such things weren't ALL scientific.  But in the hierarchy of things that require individually inspired genius, building audio gear is very low, as is listening to audio gear to determine what merit it has.  Just because something is "subjective" doesn't make it "art."  IMO we should pursue a scientific path for how people hear things and what they listen for -- pursue it alongside everyone's current subjective preferences, that is, and not at the expense of them.

“Where the world ceases to be the stage for personal hopes and desires, where we, as free beings, behold it in wonder, to question and to contemplate, there we enter the realm of art and science. If we trace out what we behold and experience through the language of logic, we are doing science; if we show it in forms whose interrelationships are not accessible to our conscious thought but are intuitively recognized as meaningful, we are doing art. Common to both is the devotion to something beyond the personal, removed from the arbitrary.” — Albert Einstein

[BrianM]

rajacat, I don't know if that was meant to answer or discount anything I said, but it's a lovely quotation.

[BrianM]

A piece has to be well engineered to have a chance of being good.  The designer has to understand that's not the end of it to have a chance to be great.

Right!  Once he's engineered it well, he needs to replace all the ordinary parts with boutique parts! 

[BrianM]

Without clearing all the "noise" from both within and outside the component & chain,,,, you'll never have any concept of what that "final" sound could actually consist of so there's nothing to go back to cuz your dead right out of the gate. No one can, regardless of how much has been spent on a system unless of course these conditions have been met in manufacturing,,,,  which I hardly doubt. 

Cheers,
Robin

And it turns out that a lot of people, who did clear all the "noise" from everything, decided that the "final" sound wasn't all that different from the previous one.  But you're absolutely right, they could have had no idea before trying it.

[miklorsmith]

Not exactly Brian, though humorous.   

The art is much more than swapping caps.

[*Scotty*]

BrianM,I suspect a BOSE WAVE SYSTEM will still have the same "lifelike music reproduction" with the cleanest power possible. At the end of the day we still wouldn't care about how it sounds one way or another. The best solution I have seen so far for clean power is going off the grid and running a dedicated line to your system from a pure sinewave inverter sized for your whole house and a good sized bank of batteries. This can cost less to do than some peoples collection of powercords. The batteries charge when you are not listening to the system.
Scotty

[Canyoneagle]

.......or you could just buy battery-powered components......

[satfrat]

.......or you could just buy battery-powered components......

That's a great solution for AC generated noise but it still doesn't deal with component generated noise. DC power in of itself isn't the last word in removing "all" EMI noise from a system. EMI isn't exclusive to AC power and it's still affecting the audio signal from both within the individual components, the interaction of these components with each other, and within the envirement we all live in. 

Cheers,
Robin

[Thebiker]

Absolutely intriguing discussion from all sides.....the scientific/measurement rule and the warm & fuzzy side which says "measurements do not make it sound right".  And it has been kept amiable through 28 pages.  Awesome!

My example many pages ago about a Cary/Proclaim system can be taken a little further forward.  The high end shop that I deal in does do room treatment for their listening room.  I interrupted my own listening session to let another customer demo a McIntosh system (1200 watt monoblocks), top of the line Ariel speakers.  The guy who demoed the Mac loved it and bought it.  Now I think Mac's probably measure fantastic (I haven't looked at that in years) but in the treated room with the Cary/Proclaim system, the Macs sound flat and lifeless on the same music, in my opinion.

We all know that designers for Mac & Cary strive for the best measurements they can get, but the Cary sang and the Mac didn't.  The Mac had all the notes, all the range but lacked the life, IN MY OPINION.

And that is what this twisted, sick hobby that we all love is all about:  The listeners opinion.  There is no wrong or right once we get past all the debates.  Does it make you smile?  Does it sound like music?  Does it make you happy?  Because that is what counts.  The rest is just a way to pass the time and exercise our debating skills .

Happy listening,
Walt

[satfrat]

And that is what this twisted, sick hobby that we all love is all about:  The listeners opinion.  There is no wrong or right once we get past all the debates.  Does it make you smile?  Does it sound like music?  Does it make you happy?  Because that is what counts.  The rest is just a way to pass the time and exercise our debating skills .

Happy listening,
Walt

I couldn't agree more Walt,,,, 

[*Scotty*]

The neat thing about noise on an AC line is that you can see it on an oscilloscope,it looks like fuzz on the back of the waveform,less fuzz equals less noise. I paid $135.00 for my 50mHz
Tectronix Scope on eBay. The point is you can see for yourself how much noise you have and whether your attempts to reduce it did any good.
Scotty