| Author |
Message |
nyob123@peoplepc.com
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
michael
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| 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?
|
Ask yourself, "what could be responsible for this"? The imaging should
be encoded in the source signal. If a subsequent device "adds" what you
would think to be "imaging" then what is added must be something not
contained in the original signal. If the purpose of an amplifier is to
magnify the original signal as it is then the answer is clear. An
amplifier that "adds" something to the signal is adding a distortion
component.
The only other answer would be that an amplifier is "subtracting"
something from the original source. How could that be? The answer is
that it is defective, somehow.
In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some say
that the measurement routine in these instances has not been identified.
But distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR or other known
variation in one way or another. This is nothing esoteric.
I suspect that in most instances of such subjective valuations what is
being reported is merely a psychological artifact; i.e., wishful
thinking. It is easy to fool oneself when things are not controlled.
Everyone knows that 100 pound amps with laser etched aluminum faceplates
are psychologically more appealing than something less aesthetically
sound (no pun intended). Often, I suspect, this aesthetic appearance
takes precedence over mere sonic value. We trade and eye for an ear, as
it were.
mp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| 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?
|
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.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"michael" <mpresley@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:din6tp02gkr@news2.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?
Ask yourself, "what could be responsible for this"? The imaging should be
encoded in the source signal. If a subsequent device "adds" what you
would think to be "imaging" then what is added must be something not
contained in the original signal. If the purpose of an amplifier is to
magnify the original signal as it is then the answer is clear. An
amplifier that "adds" something to the signal is adding a distortion
component.
The only other answer would be that an amplifier is "subtracting"
something from the original source. How could that be? The answer is
that it is defective, somehow.
In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some say that
the measurement routine in these instances has not been identified. But
distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR or other known
variation in one way or another. This is nothing esoteric.
I suspect that in most instances of such subjective valuations what is
being reported is merely a psychological artifact; i.e., wishful thinking.
It is easy to fool oneself when things are not controlled.
Everyone knows that 100 pound amps with laser etched aluminum faceplates
are psychologically more appealing than something less aesthetically sound
(no pun intended). Often, I suspect, this aesthetic appearance takes
precedence over mere sonic value. We trade and eye for an ear, as it
were.
I had never believed that amps ahd any effect on image, but given my lack of |
knowledge compared to some of the audio professionals here, I thought I'd
tap in a bit, so to speak.
Also I was hoping to settle an arguement with a subjectivist who is quite
adamant in his belief that amps do play a role in imaging.
I doubt that it will ultimately settle the issue but as they say, if you
don't ask, you don't get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:din6hr02g0v@news2.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?
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. 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". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buster Mudd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
michael wrote:
| Quote: |
In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some say
that the measurement routine in these instances has not been identified.
But distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR or other known
variation in one way or another.
|
I would guess that "imaging" artifacts in power amplifiers would
manifest themselves as interchannel crosstalk rather than FR
aberrations. But your point is spot on: it's still distortion however
you look at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | 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. 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".
|
If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through
depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dipsnh02qrs@news4.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Harry Lavo wrote:
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. 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".
If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through
depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell.
Gary Eickmeier
|
All I have to do is run them through my Thiel 2 2's. And have done so...a
Dynaco Stereo 70, an ARC D-90B, a Dynaco 500, an Amber, and several
different Audionics.
Big difference in transparency versus a VTL ST85 or my Outlaw Monoblocks.
And neither of them is near total transparency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
| Quote: | "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.
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.
To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifers 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.
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.
And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only.
| Quote: | 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 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | Harry Lavo wrote:
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. 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".
If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through
depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell.
Gary Eickmeier
|
Not to mention that the reason for them to fall short in "see-through
depth" is that weak link: the LP and the LP playback gear :). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ban
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
Ask yourself, "what could be responsible for this"? The imaging
should be encoded in the source signal. If a subsequent device
"adds" what you would think to be "imaging" then what is added must
be something not contained in the original signal. If the purpose
of an amplifier is to magnify the original signal as it is then the
answer is clear. An amplifier that "adds" something to the signal
is adding a distortion component.
The only other answer would be that an amplifier is "subtracting"
something from the original source. How could that be? The answer
is that it is defective, somehow.
In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some
say that the measurement routine in these instances has not been
identified. But distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR
or other known variation in one way or another. This is nothing
esoteric.
I suspect that in most instances of such subjective valuations what
is being reported is merely a psychological artifact; i.e., wishful
thinking. It is easy to fool oneself when things are not controlled.
I had never believed that amps ahd any effect on image, but given my
lack of knowledge compared to some of the audio professionals here, I
thought I'd tap in a bit, so to speak.
Also I was hoping to settle an arguement with a subjectivist who is
quite adamant in his belief that amps do play a role in imaging.
|
The most important feature in imaging is the "center" image. It is the
phantom picture, that should be as stable as possible through all the
frequencies, neither jumping to the right or left nor back and forth. It is
IMHO not influenced by any competent amplifier, but the speakers and
especially the room positioning.
The listening area should be chosen as symmetrical as possible.
The second important feature is the ratio between direct/reflected energy.
The more this ratio is balanced through the frequency range, the more
natural the soundstage is perceived. The reflections should be diffuse, not
having preferred directions. This can be accomplished by using only the
absolutly necessary damping material on certain mirror points, otherwise as
many diffusors as possible.
Any settling noises of the speaker chassis and distortion will be located at
the place where they are created: the speaker position. They prevent the
soundfield being perceived on other than right/left/middle positions. Very
high quality loudspeakers will have less of these artefacts.
I have been researching this phenomenon for some time and came up with a
pair of speakers with superb optimized imaging.
http://www.pupazzo.page.ms/
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dipkg50i52@news3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | "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.
|
Then you should have learned by now that your senses can be fooled.
The only amp I have heard
| Quote: | below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK
integrated, and even that is $3000.
|
This is most likely the fault of how you do your comparisons.
And if you go back into the '70's
| Quote: | virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth".
|
And today it is a simple matter to achieve an amp that produces an exact
duplicate of what is sent to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BEAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:42 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| 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?
|
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.
_-_-bear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dirgf502rq3@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
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. 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".
If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through
depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell.
Gary Eickmeier
Not to mention that the reason for them to fall short in "see-through
depth" is that weak link: the LP and the LP playback gear :).
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:40 am Post subject:
Re: Amplifiers and imaging |
|
|
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:dirgdm02rl7@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | 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.
| 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:
| Quote: | 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
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in