| Author |
Message |
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dirm3u01qjf@news4.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some
audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable?
The answer in general terms in a technical sense is relatively easy:
- noise floor
- channel separation
- spectra of distortion
- spectra of distortion with respect to power level
- spectra of distortion with respect to power level for the given load
(speaker)
- degree of dip or modulation of PS (relates to the former item)
I think these are the main technical points. I may have overlooked
something...
I disagree about the point made in this thread about "directional
speakers" having imaging that "collapses" between the speakers. I have
seen nor heard no such correlation whatsoever.
There are issues with odd polar response patterns w/respect to freq that
can make some imaging problems. And also problems with freq response,
especially non-linear types of distortion that will wreck havoc with
imaging as well.
|
My comments earlier in this thread re: transparency relate mostly to noise
floor, I believe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dirgdm02rl7@news1.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:din6hr02g0v@news2.newsguy.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some
audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable?
Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of
the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With
more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse
closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more
omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the
reflected images.
The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with
frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not
the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency,
which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher
frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any
effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect.
One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more
"invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else
being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in
transparancy, but my senses tell me differently.
Please provide references to the above.
We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have forgotten
it. I doubt you have as well.
|
You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have
forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said.
| Quote: |
You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent
musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by
quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what
they were saying first.
Okay, here is the starting quote:
"HL:
May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment
of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. "
"CHUNG
You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up?
I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is
due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material."
SOURCE:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: chung <chung...@covad.net
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT
Subject: Re: weakest Link in the Chain
|
So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that
there are no differences in transparancy"?
Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy"
in that quote!
Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret
things, and quote them, as he sees fit...
| Quote: |
To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very
alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion.
There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The
Wavac is a good example.
Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency
response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all
amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and
distortion were nominal for their type.
|
But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in
transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you
understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did
not say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without
qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you
and your subjectivist friends.
| Quote: |
I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because
there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you
may be frequency response errors to others.
Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or
overshoot in transient response.
|
So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such
that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you
can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"?
An amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to
others. While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a
measureable, non-ambiguous way please.
| Quote: |
And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only.
The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems
totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if
you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through
depth".
I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses to
the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that.
|
Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the
price-tag) of the amp.
| Quote: |
I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course,
since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered
transparent by Harry.
A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not
heard one lower than this price.
|
A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist,
and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not
judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | "BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dirm3u01qjf@news4.newsguy.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some
audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable?
The answer in general terms in a technical sense is relatively easy:
- noise floor
- channel separation
- spectra of distortion
- spectra of distortion with respect to power level
- spectra of distortion with respect to power level for the given load
(speaker)
- degree of dip or modulation of PS (relates to the former item)
I think these are the main technical points. I may have overlooked
something...
I disagree about the point made in this thread about "directional
speakers" having imaging that "collapses" between the speakers. I have
seen nor heard no such correlation whatsoever.
There are issues with odd polar response patterns w/respect to freq that
can make some imaging problems. And also problems with freq response,
especially non-linear types of distortion that will wreck havoc with
imaging as well.
My comments earlier in this thread re: transparency relate mostly to noise
floor, I believe.
|
Which makes your previous statement (that you have not heard a
transparent amp that costs less than $3K) totally strange. The noise
floor of an amp is easily measurable, and it is also trivially easy to
find amps in the $1K and less price range that have as low or lower
noise floors than a lot of amps costing much more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dis69002jhs@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dirgdm02rl7@news1.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:din6hr02g0v@news2.newsguy.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some
audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable?
Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of
the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With
more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse
closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more
omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the
reflected images.
The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with
frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not
the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency,
which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher
frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any
effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect.
One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more
"invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else
being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in
transparancy, but my senses tell me differently.
Please provide references to the above.
We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have
forgotten
it. I doubt you have as well.
You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have
forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said.
|
Nice dodge. You have been called.
| Quote: |
You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent
musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by
quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding
what
they were saying first.
Okay, here is the starting quote:
"HL:
May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between
equipment
of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. "
"CHUNG
You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up?
I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is
due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material."
SOURCE:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: chung <chung...@covad.net
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT
Subject: Re: weakest Link in the Chain
So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that
there are no differences in transparancy"?
|
Very simple. The thread was about my assertion that amplifiers were more
transparent than they were 25 years ago. I attributed this to passive
components. You spent considerable time asserting and reasserting that
passive components had not changed nor were amplifiers themselves any more
transparent than in the past.
In the "quote" above you tried to indicate that any perceived increase in
transparency arose from substitution of CD technology for LP
technology...just one of many gambits.
You have been called.
| Quote: | Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy" in
that quote!
|
While continuing to deny that there had been any "real" increase in
transparency.
You have been called.
| Quote: | Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret
things, and quote them, as he sees fit...
|
Or to remember them in a context you'd rather not deal with.
You have been called.
| Quote: |
To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very
alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion.
There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The
Wavac is a good example.
Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency
response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all
amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and
distortion were nominal for their type.
But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in
transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you
understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did not
say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without
qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you
and your subjectivist friends.
|
I never said you said all amps sound alike. However, you never mentioned a
word about amps being different in transparency in that prior discussion.
You claimed the *only* audible differences in amplifier performance resulted
from substandard active circuitry design or specification, or poor opamps.
And you classified this as distortion, not a higher noise floor or lesser
transparency.
| Quote: |
I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because
there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to
you
may be frequency response errors to others.
Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or
overshoot in transient response.
So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such
that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you
can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"? An
amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to others.
While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a measureable,
non-ambiguous way please.
|
I mean by transparency "transparency". The ability of the electronics to
"dissappear". To have no "sound" at all. Difficult, no?
| Quote: |
And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only.
The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems
totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And
if
you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through
depth".
I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses
to
the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that.
Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the
price-tag) of the amp.
|
In the first place, I don't own high-price-tag amps at the moment, although
I have at times in the past. And the ones I do own and use currently as my
main amps are good, but are not the ultimate in transparency. But I have
heard others that are. And I don't have to hide behind a dbt in order to
make the observation. You don't want to believe my observation, fine. You
can go "prove" I am wrong. It is, after all my stated opinion based on
observation, not a test. I'll leave it to others to decide based on their
own observations whether they agree with me or not.
| Quote: |
I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course,
since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered
transparent by Harry.
A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not
heard one lower than this price.
|
Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were
transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they
"sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means
they don't "sound" at all.
| Quote: |
A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and
you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge
an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K..
|
Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I
would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I
wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK,
I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't
keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty
presumptuous at times, Chung. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dis69002jhs@news2.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dirgdm02rl7@news1.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:din6hr02g0v@news2.newsguy.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some
audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable?
Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of
the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With
more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse
closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more
omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the
reflected images.
The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with
frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not
the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency,
which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher
frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any
effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect.
One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more
"invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else
being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in
transparancy, but my senses tell me differently.
Please provide references to the above.
We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have
forgotten
it. I doubt you have as well.
You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have
forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said.
Nice dodge. You have been called.
|
Harry, you are the one who is doing the dodging when called. Please show
us where I said "there are no differences in transparency" between all amps?
| Quote: |
You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent
musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by
quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding
what
they were saying first.
Okay, here is the starting quote:
"HL:
May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between
equipment
of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. "
"CHUNG
You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up?
I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is
due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material."
SOURCE:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: chung <chung...@covad.net
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT
Subject: Re: weakest Link in the Chain
So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that
there are no differences in transparancy"?
Very simple. The thread was about my assertion that amplifiers were more
transparent than they were 25 years ago. I attributed this to passive
components. You spent considerable time asserting and reasserting that
passive components had not changed nor were amplifiers themselves any more
transparent than in the past.
In the "quote" above you tried to indicate that any perceived increase in
transparency arose from substitution of CD technology for LP
technology...just one of many gambits.
|
Did I ever say that *all* amps have the same transparency, Harry? Did
you remember my saying that *active* components have a lot more to do
with improved performance in amplifiers?
| Quote: |
You have been called.
Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy" in
that quote!
While continuing to deny that there had been any "real" increase in
transparency.
|
I do not think that any improvement in transparency in amplifers was
caused by largely "passsive components" as you seem to believe. I do
remember spending quite a bit of time explaining and refuting every
point you made. And every time when you were caught saying technically
nonsensical things, you would bring out that fact that you were not
technical trained as an excuse.
Do you understand the simple fact that when I said "I do not believe
transparency improvement is largely due to passive components", I was
*NOT* saying that all amps have the same transparency?
| Quote: |
You have been called.
|
Simple repetition does not make it so, Harry.
| Quote: |
Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret
things, and quote them, as he sees fit...
Or to remember them in a context you'd rather not deal with.
|
Or, to be exact, remember them in a context that only Harry is aware of...
| Quote: |
You have been called.
To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very
alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion.
There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The
Wavac is a good example.
Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency
response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all
amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and
distortion were nominal for their type.
But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in
transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you
understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did not
say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without
qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you
and your subjectivist friends.
I never said you said all amps sound alike. However, you never mentioned a
word about amps being different in transparency in that prior discussion.
|
Did I mention that all amps are the same in transparency, Harry? It
seems like using your logic, if I do not explicitly say all amps are
different in transparency, then they must all be the same in
transparency. You see the fallacy in your logic?
| Quote: | You claimed the *only* audible differences in amplifier performance resulted
from substandard active circuitry design or specification, or poor opamps.
And you classified this as distortion, not a higher noise floor or lesser
transparency.
|
One more time, Harry, you show that you do not understand what was said.
And you are also trying to go off on a tangent.
Audible differences result from real measureable performance
differences. Such differences can be due to substandard, or
intentionally inaccurate circuit design. They can be due to (but not
exclusively) the wrong usage of components, both active and passive.
Such differences can be found in (a) frequency responses, (b) levels of
distortion, (c) signal-to-noise ratios or (d) extraneous spurious
signals such as line spurs.
I never said that the only audible difference is in distortion, or can
be classified only as distortion. I did not say that only active
components can be responsible for poor performance.
What I did not and do not agree with is your belief that the improvement
in amplifiers in the last 25 years is largely due to the quality of the
passive components used. I made that point that better *active* parts
like transistors, op-amps, or digital processing circuitry play a much
bigger role in performance improvements than simply the quality of the
passive parts.
Anyone interested in following that discussion can look up the thread
titled "How is QA done in the high-end business?", dated February 2005.
| Quote: |
I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because
there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to
you
may be frequency response errors to others.
Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or
overshoot in transient response.
So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such
that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you
can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"? An
amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to others.
While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a measureable,
non-ambiguous way please.
I mean by transparency "transparency". The ability of the electronics to
"dissappear". To have no "sound" at all. Difficult, no?
|
So you cannot define it in a measureable, non-ambiguous way: just what I
thought. How do you know if the electronics have "disappeared"? So
"apparent transparency" means electronics have apparently disappeared? :)
| Quote: |
And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only.
The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems
totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And
if
you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through
depth".
I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses
to
the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that.
Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the
price-tag) of the amp.
In the first place, I don't own high-price-tag amps at the moment, although
I have at times in the past. And the ones I do own and use currently as my
main amps are good, but are not the ultimate in transparency. But I have
heard others that are. And I don't have to hide behind a dbt in order to
make the observation. You don't want to believe my observation, fine. You
can go "prove" I am wrong. It is, after all my stated opinion based on
observation, not a test. I'll leave it to others to decide based on their
own observations whether they agree with me or not.
I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course,
since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered
transparent by Harry.
A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not
heard one lower than this price.
Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were
transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they
"sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means
they don't "sound" at all.
|
See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these
discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do
you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you
*think* "electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all".
That depends on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with
noticeable FR errors that some people rate as transparent. In those
cases, clearly the electronics do not disappear: they add linear and
non-linear distortions.
| Quote: |
A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and
you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge
an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K..
Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I
would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I
wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK,
I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't
keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty
presumptuous at times, Chung.
|
It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp
costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that
you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman M. Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dirp9801usu@news4.newsguy.com...
| Quote: |
I'm talking about both LP and CD in the here- and now-. All the amps I
mentioned have been tistened to in the last 5-10 years though modern
speakers, and using both very fine vinyl and very fine CD systems.
|
In the last 10 years our hearing has become less "transparent", more than
anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:diu3ae01iu8@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Harry Lavo wrote:
snip
I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of
course,
since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered
transparent by Harry.
A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not
heard one lower than this price.
Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were
transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they
"sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means
they don't "sound" at all.
See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these
discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do
you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you *think*
"electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all". That depends
on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with noticeable FR
errors that some people rate as transparent. In those cases, clearly the
electronics do not disappear: they add linear and non-linear distortions.
|
The reason I snipped all the above is because it all boils down to the
paragraphs above. If I talk about transparency and in any way try to
attribute it to something, you start weaving technical explainations as to
why I am "wrong". And if I simply define transparency accurately, as I have
above, then you say it is "undefined".
I'd suggest if you want to be a top notch audio engineer you take the
trouble to first experience and understand transparency, in the audiophile
sense, and then translate it into engineering terms for yourself as an
engineer and designer. Apparently several engineers / sets of engineers in
the industry have managed to do this, and their equipment exhibits this
characteristic.
| Quote: | A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist,
and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not
judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K..
Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I
would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I
wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the
DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That
didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be
mighty presumptuous at times, Chung.
It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp
costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that
you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers...
|
If you haven't, I'd suggest you do the same. Including some pricier ones
with outstanding reputations. Perhaps then you'll understand what I am
talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:diu3ae01iu8@news2.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
snip
I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of
course,
since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered
transparent by Harry.
A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not
heard one lower than this price.
Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were
transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they
"sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means
they don't "sound" at all.
See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these
discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do
you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you *think*
"electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all". That depends
on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with noticeable FR
errors that some people rate as transparent. In those cases, clearly the
electronics do not disappear: they add linear and non-linear distortions.
The reason I snipped all the above is because it all boils down to the
paragraphs above.
|
The reason you snipped "all the above" is because you could not back up
your erroneous statement that "Chung argues that there is no difference
in transparency" between amplifiers.
| Quote: | If I talk about transparency and in any way try to
attribute it to something, you start weaving technical explainations as to
why I am "wrong".
|
You're not "wrong" in using the word transparency. It's just that it's
an ambiguous word. I would prefer the word "accuracy", but that's just
me. Whether it is accuracy, transparency, low noise, flat frequency
response, you were referring to some highly desirable property of an
amplifier. And I never said that such a property is the same for all
amplifiers.
By the way, if you are wrong, then it's unavoidable that we may have to
provide technical explanations as to why you are wrong. Otherwise, how
could we show that you are objectively wrong? :)
| Quote: | And if I simply define transparency accurately, as I have
above, then you say it is "undefined".
|
I asked you to define it in a quantitative, measureable and unambiguous
way. You failed to do that. In fact, you even contradicted yourself
because you said transparency means "electronics disappear" in this
thread, yet in another post, you said that by transparency you meant
largely the (low) noise floor. That's a contradiction because clearly
one can design an amp with a very low noise but with large frequency
errors and distortion so that the amp cannot be remotely called
"transparent" by anyone, or the "electronics" considered to have
"disappeared" by anyone. See, I don't think you even know how to deine
it in a consistent, repeatable way. And you may call an amp transparent,
while others may call it too bright, too clinical, too dry, or whatever
adjectives audiophiles love to use.
| Quote: |
I'd suggest if you want to be a top notch audio engineer you take the
trouble to first experience and understand transparency, in the audiophile
sense, and then translate it into engineering terms for yourself as an
engineer and designer.
|
I would much prefer the word accurate, and try to design amplifiers that
are objectively, measureably, accurate, rather than to worry about
whether Harry Lavo might find it transparent. After all, what Harry
finds transparent, others may not like at all, and vice versa.
| Quote: | Apparently several engineers / sets of engineers in
the industry have managed to do this, and their equipment exhibits this
characteristic.
|
Right, now try blind comparisons. Remember Yamaha vs Pass?
| Quote: |
A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist,
and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not
judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K..
Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I
would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I
wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the
DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That
didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be
mighty presumptuous at times, Chung.
It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp
costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that
you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers...
If you haven't, I'd suggest you do the same. Including some pricier ones
with outstanding reputations.
|
You mean like Pass vs Yamaha?
| Quote: | Perhaps then you'll understand what I am
talking about.
|
Oh, I understand what you are talking about. That's why I said if you
know the amp costs less than $3K, you would not find it transparent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serge Auckland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Not that I'm aware of. Stereo image is a function of separation between
channels. Any competent stereo amplifier has more than 50-60dB separation at
all audio frequencies, so won't affect the stereo image. Remember that
pick-up cartridges manage good stereo imaging, and few have more and 20-25dB
separation at mid frequencies, much less at the frequency extremes.
Serge
"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:dikeam02v6f@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the
stereo
image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles?
If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in