"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.
With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.
I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real
audible
truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point
is,
they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I
said,
acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
reproduced I have heard so far!
"Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.
Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
preferential thing.
I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
as simple as that.
I never claimed that an OTL could measure the same as an SS amp, it is your
assumption. What I am saying is that these OTLs performs remarkable well
despite of their specifications. By well I mean that they sound very natural
to my ears, and that they reproduce voices and instruments as I would expect
them to sound.
Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.
Do you understand the point?
I do, and answered already.
Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,
furthermore,
the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a
voltage
source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises.
A
speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not
the
voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
compromise.
I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
interesting......
Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
different post.
There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.
It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
the entire chain.
But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
path.
So you are saying that there really is no such thing as high-end, just a
bunch of crooks trying to rip poor misguided music lovers for their hard
earned money?
Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say
yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)
Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.
There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
would
not give an objective idea of the end result.
Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
pretty precise.
Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view, that
OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?
And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!
Absolutely nonsence,
Hardly, if you read your statement.
But your failed to answer the question:
Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
is playing a hinderance to relaxation?
Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
complaints about DB testing.
I have seen DB tests saying that all amplifiers sound the same, and similar
crazy stuff. So from my personal point of view DB test has proven that only
very significant changes in the sound are revealed in these tests.
And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.
I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any
specific
ideals, brands etc.
But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.
Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
music the best I can.
Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
equipment-wise?
I do not have any objections at all, however I don't see the point in doing
it. If I did it, the result would be questioned anyway.
All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.
If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely
that
you would actually hear it?
But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
differences!
Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh,
to
being pleasing, why not use this tweak?
Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
don't care.
But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.
Why is that stressful?
A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.
You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
it up.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |