Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] khughes@nospam.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

Scott wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:16 pm, Scott wrote:





On Aug 14, 1:00 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"codifus" wrote in message
And that there are
also devices that measure poorly but sound great?
That can easily happen because of the rediculously high standards some
people have for measured performance.
Or the ridiculously low standard for "sounds great". Reference SET
lovers.
Have you never heard a SET based system sound great?

I have with significant constraints on it's use, the major one
being SPL. Increase the volume only slightly to well below
anything approaching live levels and
audible increases in distortion resulted in completely
different sound results. IMO, such a system has a very low
standard for "sounds great".

I can see how that can be an issue with most speakers. I have heard a
few SET based systems that used very efficient speakers that sounded
pretty darned good. even great in some cases. SPLs were not an issue
in those systems. I fail to see the "lower standard." If something
sounds great it sounds great. No? What is the 'lower standard?" Is it
just your particular experiences and the issue of SPLs?

Note to the moderator. I assure you I will remain civil with Scott W.
I am confindent he will do the same with me.


Personally, I've never heard speakers with efficiencies great enough to
get realistic SPL's from SET's unless they were horn loaded, and for my
tastes, I've not heard any "great" sounding horns (haven't heard them
all, no).

That aside, I think the point with SET's is the significant constraint
they put on speaker choice. That was the gist I got from ScottW's 'low
standard' description. With the constraint of such low power, you do
not have the freedom to choose whichever transducers (admitted by
virtually everyone to be the most colored of all system components)
sound best to you, while maintaining the ability to achieve realistic
SPL's, unless you "just happen" to think horns are the best sounding
speakers.

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Fred. Fred. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 15, 7:18*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, "Fred." wrote:

I'm sure that a large number of differences in sound people claim they
can hear are based on ego and/or bias as you suggest. *But, I'm
eaually sure the human ear is remarkable in its capabilites, and in
the differences in capabilities between people. *We have only the
roughest idea what the typical human ear is sensitive to, let alone
the range of the atypical.


Human hearing has been a subject of scientific study for a good
century and a half. We have quite a good idea of what the human ear is
sensitive to. Some audiophiles may not have a good idea of what the
human ear is sensitive to, but that's a reflection on them, not on the
state of scientific knowledge.

While tend to reserve judgement, I'm truly reluctant to reject any one
claim on nothing more than what I personally hear, or on an electrical
measurement, which itself is based on certain expectations concerning
*normal* human hearing.


Claims are easy to reject when they fall well out of the range of even
"exceptional" hearing. There's a gray area, of course, where only
careful listening tests can tell you whether something is or is not
audible to a particular person. None of the claims in this thread come
anywhere near that gray area.

bob


Bob,

While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I was younger I
used to experience discomfort in stores which left their ultrasonic
motion detectors on during the day. Since this was obviously
impossible, you can imagine that I didn't talk about it much.
However, I did mention it once to my wife, who is a speech
pathologist, snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you
would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our daughter
complained of the same problem. Since I never talked about it with
our daughter, I guess it's hereditary insanity :-).

Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number
of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having
processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. He had
ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. He had to try
several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see
through such lenses. During his presentation he passed a pair of the
lenses around the audience. As expected, most of us, including me,
with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't
see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them,
exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page
with obvious pleasure.

I also recall, working in R&D, discovering a serious defect in an
outsourced power supply, where the symptom which made us look at it
was a flicker in the lights which only one person could perceive, and
they weren't even quite sure they were seeing it.

Science produces theorectical models which are useful for prediction.
You can apply those models to "easily" discount claims, and have a
very high probability of being right. Yet, that leaves a finite
probablity of being wrong. And, any competant physicist will tell you
that science confines itself to measuring things that are relatively
easy to measure.

Our use of language to describe our perceptions, combined with social
accomodation, like my not talking about my sensitivity to ultrasonics,
tends to blind us to the very large differences in what people
perceive. And, dealing with things on a statistical basis, tends to
blind us to the existence of extremes.

Many claims should be met with doubt, and "show me". I'm just
suggesting that if you're too sure about what you "know", and take the
easy path of outright regjection, you may miss something important,
and incidentally commit an injustice.

Fred.

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:47:37 -0700, Fred. wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 15, 7:18*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, "Fred." wrote:

I'm sure that a large number of differences in sound people claim they
can hear are based on ego and/or bias as you suggest. *But, I'm
eaually sure the human ear is remarkable in its capabilites, and in
the differences in capabilities between people. *We have only the
roughest idea what the typical human ear is sensitive to, let alone
the range of the atypical.


Human hearing has been a subject of scientific study for a good
century and a half. We have quite a good idea of what the human ear is
sensitive to. Some audiophiles may not have a good idea of what the
human ear is sensitive to, but that's a reflection on them, not on the
state of scientific knowledge.

While tend to reserve judgement, I'm truly reluctant to reject any one
claim on nothing more than what I personally hear, or on an electrical
measurement, which itself is based on certain expectations concerning
*normal* human hearing.


Claims are easy to reject when they fall well out of the range of even
"exceptional" hearing. There's a gray area, of course, where only
careful listening tests can tell you whether something is or is not
audible to a particular person. None of the claims in this thread come
anywhere near that gray area.

bob


Bob,

While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I was younger I
used to experience discomfort in stores which left their ultrasonic
motion detectors on during the day. Since this was obviously
impossible, you can imagine that I didn't talk about it much.
However, I did mention it once to my wife, who is a speech
pathologist, snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you
would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our daughter
complained of the same problem. Since I never talked about it with
our daughter, I guess it's hereditary insanity :-).

Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number
of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having
processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. He had
ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. He had to try
several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see
through such lenses. During his presentation he passed a pair of the
lenses around the audience. As expected, most of us, including me,
with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't
see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them,
exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page
with obvious pleasure.

I also recall, working in R&D, discovering a serious defect in an
outsourced power supply, where the symptom which made us look at it
was a flicker in the lights which only one person could perceive, and
they weren't even quite sure they were seeing it.

Science produces theorectical models which are useful for prediction.
You can apply those models to "easily" discount claims, and have a
very high probability of being right. Yet, that leaves a finite
probablity of being wrong. And, any competant physicist will tell you
that science confines itself to measuring things that are relatively
easy to measure.

Our use of language to describe our perceptions, combined with social
accomodation, like my not talking about my sensitivity to ultrasonics,
tends to blind us to the very large differences in what people
perceive. And, dealing with things on a statistical basis, tends to
blind us to the existence of extremes.

Many claims should be met with doubt, and "show me". I'm just
suggesting that if you're too sure about what you "know", and take the
easy path of outright regjection, you may miss something important,
and incidentally commit an injustice.

Fred.


Very interesting. Also there is another mechanism at work. The old "I look
but I do not see and I listen but I do not hear" phenomenon. Many people can
see the same object and glean different amounts of detail from it. Some
people are more observant than others. I had a friend, recently, for
instance, try to describe to me over the phone an unusual car that he saw and
he said something like "It looks a lot like a '55 Buick, but it's smaller".
Finally, I get enough information from him to figure out that the car the was
talking about was a European Ford 'Capri' from the early 1970's. Well, I
don't have to tell you that a 55 Buick and a 70's Capri have, in common, only
that they both have 4 wheels an engine, and seats for the occupants. They
share no styling features in common, none. But this person's lack of
automobile experience coupled with his poor observational skills (something
that I have noted about the guy many times) cause both cars to make a similar
impression on him (and god alone knows why that is. The guy himself can't
even tell me).

I think about this difference in perception often when people try to tell me
that all CD players, for instance, sound the same, or that all op-amps sound
alike. Just because some listeners don't notice any differences, doesn't mean
that the differences don't exist. What it might mean is that some people
aren't as "observant" of audible differences as are others. But there is the
other side of the coin as well. there are people who claim to hear
differences that simply cannot exist, such as the differences between the
sound of audio interconnects or speaker cables or the difference in sound
made by "cable elevators" for speaker cables . Double-blind tests show
conclusively that there are no such differences and of course, the laws of
electricity back those findings up. What the laws of electricity say about
the differences between the sound of modern, well designed amplifiers
(preamps, op-amps, power amps, amps of all types and applications) is that
they should sound very much alike and that any differences would be miniscule
and subtle. And again, double-blind tests bear this out. But differences here
do exist, and the fact is that some people might notice them (and therefore
care about them) more than do others because they are more "aurally
observant".

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

"Fred." wrote in message


While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I
was younger I used to experience discomfort in stores
which left their ultrasonic motion detectors on during
the day. Since this was obviously impossible, you can
imagine that I didn't talk about it much. However, I did
mention it once to my wife, who is a speech pathologist,
snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you
would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our
daughter complained of the same problem. Since I never
talked about it with our daughter, I guess it's
hereditary insanity :-).


No, it shows a lack of knowlege by the people making the judgement. Some
ultrasonic motion detectors generate SPLs that would be hazardous to your
hearing, if they operated in the audible range. SPLs in the 112-120 dB are
not unusual. Sensing sound thay is not that far outside the region of the
ear's maximum sensitivity is usually just a matter of getting it loud
enough. Whether you sense sound by means of transmission of the sound into
your ear canal and activation of the basilar membrane, or by other means,
may be a good question.

This needs to be put into perspective with the ultrasonics generated by
musical instruments. As a rule musical instruments generate their maximum
SPLs in the audible range, generally below 10 KHz. This includes most
traditional western-style percussion and brass instruments. Above their
frequency of peak output, response falls off at approximately 12 dB/octave.
Thus their SPLs in the ultrasonic frequency range are far, far less.



  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Codifus Codifus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 12, 8:58*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:10:08 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ):



I've tried the LME49720s, the dual opamp versions, that is equivalent
to the LM4562NAs. From my basic understanding, the LME49720s are
basically a metal can version of the LM4562NAs. Sonically, though,
they are very different.


Keep in mind that my observations are with my TC-7520 with the MLC5/6
caps removed, as shown in the 2nd diagram from mod page here;


http://www.beresford.me/others/7520mods.html


For me, the LM4562NAs really really shine. They are almost perfect,
but their bass is just a bit light.


The LME49720s, which are basically a metal can version of the
LM4562NAs, are quite a different story. They have deep bass, but they
don't have the musicality of the LM4562NAs. Not even close. It's funny
how the plastic "inferior" quality chip out shines the "better" metal
can version. I think it all comes down to the synergy of all the
components. The TC-7520 may be better suited to plastic opamps.


I plan to try the Burr brown OPA2134s next. I hope they take well to
the MLC5/6 removal. Putting those caps back is not really an option
for me.


HMM. The OPA2134 is essentially the same as the OPA134 in specs:
20V/microsecond slew rate, 8 MHz gain bandwidth, 8 nanovolts/root Hertz
noise. These are old op-amps (10 years old) and have much more noise (8
nanovolts/root Hertz vs 2.5) than do the LME49710 family. I also believe that
the Burr-Brown op-amps do not have symmetrical slew (I deduced this from the
large signal step response oscilloscope photo in the data sheet. The falling
edge of the square wave exhibits an offset of almost 4 microseconds at the
'0' crossing point. An offset that is not there on the rising edge. This is
indicative that the falling edge (negative going) portion of the signal takes
a longer path through the IC than does the positive going rising edge) and
the Burr-Brown OPAs have orders of magnitude more THD than do the newer
National chips. I replaced OPA134s in my DAC with the Natty chips and noticed
a big improvement. It costs little to experiment this way, but in my humble
opinion, replacing members of the LME49710 family with members of the OPA134
family is taking a big step backwards. Your milage may vary 8^)


My mileage does indeed vary. I've had the OPA2134 in my 7520 for a day
now. I absolutely love them! The LM4562NAs are cleaner, but have weak
bass. I just couldn't enjoy them because someone took the bottom out,
so to speak.

The OPA2134 is a musical joy. Even when I don't intend to, I find
myself sitting down just to take them in They have this "laid back"
sort of sound, like the upper frequencies are ever so slightly slower
than the lower frequencies. It is by no means slow, but different. The
bass is stupendous. I can leave my EQ off and deliver the audio signal
without any digital and minimal analog alteration to the DAC/AMP/
speakers now.

I have happily taken 2 steps back into sweetness. 0.08% distortion and
10 year technology be damned! If Burr-Brown (is it now TI??) come out
with a new chip to rival the LM4562NA, I'll be sure to look out for
it. This OPA2134 is definitely a keeper.

CD



  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 16, 9:47*pm, "Fred." wrote:

Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number
of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having
processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. *He had
ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. *He had to try
several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see
through such lenses. *During his presentation he passed a pair of the
lenses around the audience. *As expected, most of us, including me,
with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't
see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them,
exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page
with obvious pleasure.


So? You have proof that some people can see through such lenses. Was
there any published science claiming otherwise? I doubt it. So how is
this evidence of scientific generalities getting something wrong?

What we have in audio is a group of people who claim to be able to
read through a 97% tint, but who refuse to take an eye exam. If the
woman in your anecdote had said, "Yes, I can read through this," but
then refused to actually read anything aloud, would you have believed
her?

bob


  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Fred. Fred. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 17, 12:49*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:47*pm, "Fred." wrote:

Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number
of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having
processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. *He had
ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. *He had to try
several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see
through such lenses. *During his presentation he passed a pair of the
lenses around the audience. *As expected, most of us, including me,
with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't
see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them,
exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page
with obvious pleasure.


So? You have proof that some people can see through such lenses. Was
there any published science claiming otherwise? I doubt it. So how is
this evidence of scientific generalities getting something wrong?

What we have in audio is a group of people who claim to be able to
read through a 97% tint, but who refuse to take an eye exam. If the
woman in your anecdote had said, "Yes, I can read through this," but
then refused to actually read anything aloud, would you have believed
her?

bob


I'm just suggesting that an open mind can be profitiable. Accepted,
published science is often correct, but also has a long history of
being just plain wrong about what is possible and what is not. Once
in a great while the obvious crackpot is correct.

Fred.


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Codifus Codifus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 13, 12:15*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:22:12 -0700, John Stone wrote
(in article ):

.........
You put too many zeros in the 0.08 number.

............
Is he putting too many zeroes? I just found this spec sheet here;

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa134.pdf

0.00008 looks accurate. From what I've heard, the LM4562NA sounds
cleaner, but the cleaner signal may be from being less cluttered with
bass

CD
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Ed Seedhouse[_2_] Ed Seedhouse[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Nirvana, or close to it?

On Aug 17, 2:40*pm, "Fred." wrote:

I'm just suggesting that an open mind can be profitiable. *Accepted,
published science is often correct, but also has a long history of
being just plain wrong about what is possible and what is not. *Once
in a great while the obvious crackpot is correct.


But in order to prove themselves correct they need to provide the same
thing as the non crackpots, namely sufficient evidence. Until they or
someone else provides such evidence, crackpots they remain.

A skeptic by definition, by the way, has to have an open mind, since
to be a skeptic requires that one can tell when evidence does or does
not support a claim. When the evidence does support a claim then if
the skeptic does not accept it he or she isn't really a skeptic at
all.

And of course if you are going to use the old saw about the necessity
for an open mind, you can be expected to be countered by the equally
ancient observation that one's mind should not be so open that one's
brain falls out.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--From $98/pr commonsenseaudio Marketplace 0 January 21st 06 02:36 PM
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--from $98/pr commonsenseaudio Marketplace 0 January 2nd 06 05:24 PM
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--from $98/pr commonsenseaudio Marketplace 0 October 10th 05 06:05 PM
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Hi-Eff Spkrs--From $98/pr commonsenseaudio Vacuum Tubes 1 August 1st 05 06:31 PM
NIRVANA "HDCD" CD COLLECTION $75.00 Bmarti2000 Marketplace 0 December 4th 03 03:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"