Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
I have come across several references to an article on the topic of
so-called hi rez audio files recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came. "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:28:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): I have come across several references to an article on the topic of so-called hi rez audio files recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came. "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Well written article and there's a lot of truth to it. However in his zeal to make his point, the author has made a few assumptions that I don't think are really in evidence. 1) In spite of the author's premise, I really don't think that ANYONE expects a digital system frequency response beyond 22.5KHz to actually have any (or at least not very much) actual program content. (a) Few microphones have any response much above 20 KHz and most large capsule mikes of the type generally used for recording have a huge resonance peak somewhere between about 8 and 16 KHz and drop off rapidly above that. (b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192, and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY out of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with 96 and above merely being overkill. 2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of understanding of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super hearing" is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers or, more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth) they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still posses "golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask? Because all the term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about the sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify and quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the ability to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's all it is. When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it! Things like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass, the room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc. 3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is 16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format would be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the passband, and it gives the engineer lots of headroom. 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone contemplating purchasing high-res downloads. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Audio Empire wrote:
4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC? rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Audio Empire wrote:
4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! What is wrong with FLAC? Andrew. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:28:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I have come across several references to an article on the topic of so-called hi rez audio files recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came. "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Well written article and there's a lot of truth to it. However in his zeal to make his point, the author has made a few assumptions that I don't think are really in evidence. 1) In spite of the author's premise, I really don't think that ANYONE expects a digital system frequency response beyond 22.5KHz to actually have any (or at least not very much) actual program content. I just answered a post from a fairly widely respected member of a pro audio forum who was bragging about how much 20 KHz content he was seeing in recordings. (a) Few microphones have any response much above 20 KHz and most large capsule mikes of the type generally used for recording have a huge resonance peak somewhere between about 8 and 16 KHz and drop off rapidly above that. He was rebutting this exact issue. FWIW I agree with you. (b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192, and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY out of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with 96 and above merely being overkill. Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all. 2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of understanding of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super hearing" is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers or, more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth) they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still posses "golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask? My answer is: denial. Case in point. A few weeks ago I was sitting next to a reasonably well-known *name* in high end audio at a listening session. I was complaining vigorously about the audible hum and noise. A number of people around us shared my concern but Mr. name said that he heard nothing wrong. Because all the term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about the sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify and quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the ability to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's all it is. I'm on both sides of this argument. To some degree effectiveness at audio is about both raw ability but it is also, and perhaps more preeminently as you seem to be saying, about identifying the various sounds in what you hear. However, through the magic of sighted evaluations there is also a large subset of audiophiles and professionals whose hearing seems to be mostly in their wallets. Any time you want to you can expose them with a blind test, whether stealthy or in the open. Many have become too crafty to trap that way. It's not a homogenious world out there. When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it! Things like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass, the room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc. Of course, and us blind testing advocates agree that a lot of problems like those don't need blind tests to identify or prove. These can all be faults and artifacts that are well above the well-known thresholds of audibility, or not. 3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is 16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format would be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the passband, and it gives the engineer lots of headroom. On balance, if you know what you are doing you can make great-sounding recordings with 16/44. 24 bits gets you 144 dB dynamic range, but in fact audio gear that performs at the even *just* 20 bit level is still not sold on every street corner. There are few live venues and recording studios that have even 13 bits of acosutical dynamic range. 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! I don't know about that. In my tests and usage FLAC has proven itself to be bit-perfect and sonically ideal. However, I have to admit that its relatively gentle approximately 2:1 compression is not why I like it or use it. What I like about FLAC is its support for tagging that thoroughly eclipses what legacy .wav files support. Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone contemplating purchasing high-res downloads. Especially when combined what is known about 50% of extant so-called hi rez recordings having been through low-rez (typically analog recording) production steps that limit their as-delivered performance to something like 12 bit resolution and CD format bandpass, but with more response variations. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC? rgds \SK FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software, different software compressors available out there use different FLAC compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Two of the most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8 compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound. Since there's really no way for the consumer to know what setting is being used, Dr. Zeilig recommends that the high-res download industry avoid supplying downloaded high-resolution music in the FLAC or other compression formats, if possible. I am not allowed (by the moderators) to mention my source for this info, but you can find it online by googling "FLAC vs WAV" or just "Dr, Charles Zeilig and Jay Clawson". |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): BTW, Arny. Welcome back. We've missed you! (b) Those in the know realize that sampling rates of 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192, and 384 KHz have merit simply because they move the Nyquist frequency WAY out of the audio passband and that 88.2KHz is probably quite far enough with 96 and above merely being overkill. Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all. While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive nature of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist in analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz), then gentle, analog filtering could be done therefore eliminating the pre-ringing. 2) His characterization of "golden ears" shows a basic lack of understanding of the actual meaning of the term. He's right that nobody has the kind of super hearing that he characterizes as being the definition of the golden-eared audiophile. But it's a strawman argument because "super hearing" is not what being "golden-eared" is all about. Most audiophiles these days are over fifty. They certainly do not have super hearing. Many can't hear much over 12 KHz, and if they have been exposed (either in their careers or, more likely, being exposed to loud electronic rock-n-roll in their youth) they may not hear that wide a frequency response, and yet they still posses "golden ears". How is that possible, I hear some of you ask? My answer is: denial. Case in point. A few weeks ago I was sitting next to a reasonably well-known *name* in high end audio at a listening session. I was complaining vigorously about the audible hum and noise. A number of people around us shared my concern but Mr. name said that he heard nothing wrong. OK, this, of course can happen. The title "Golden-eared Audiophile", is, after all, self-annointed, and as such often gets applied to people who are, to quote Clint Eastwood as 'Dirty Harry' , "...legends in their own minds." OTOH, I have known more than a few audiophiles who have developed a fine sense of listening acuity and can hear many things that the average listener doesn't hear. There is a big difference between between "can't hear" and "doesn't hear" Real Golden Eared types understand this difference and many of them realize that being golden-eared does NOT in any way disqualify one from being susceptible to sighted and other kinds of expectational bias. Golden Ears are useful tools, to be sure, but when comparing things, they are no substitute for the well executed bias-controlled test. Because all the term "golden ears" means is that some sound enthusiasts care enough about the sound of music to have trained themselves to listen for artifacts in reproduced music and the equipment used to reproduce it and to identify and quantify those artifacts. Things like ragged frequency response, different types of distortion and their origin, problems in recordings and the ability to tell a real stereo recording from a multi-channeled mono one. That's all it is. I'm on both sides of this argument. To some degree effectiveness at audio is about both raw ability but it is also, and perhaps more preeminently as you seem to be saying, about identifying the various sounds in what you hear. However, through the magic of sighted evaluations there is also a large subset of audiophiles and professionals whose hearing seems to be mostly in their wallets. Any time you want to you can expose them with a blind test, whether stealthy or in the open. Many have become too crafty to trap that way. It's not a homogenious world out there. Amen there. The old "this costs 10-times what that costs, so this must be better" syndrome is hard to fight. That's why DBTs are so important. OTOH, some people just want nice things and would buy the 10X component even if a DBT showed both units to perform identically. When my friend J. Gordon Holt was in his late 70's, he could still listen to a stereo system and tell you exactly what was wrong with it! Things like: the phono cartridge is mis-tracking, the speakers have boomy bass, the room has standing waves, The amplifier has high-frequency distortion, the speakers are out of phase (a common one), etc., etc., etc. Of course, and us blind testing advocates agree that a lot of problems like those don't need blind tests to identify or prove. These can all be faults and artifacts that are well above the well-known thresholds of audibility, or not. Yep. Listening and Objective or bias-controlled testing are not mutually exclusive concepts. They need to be used together in order to make truly informed music system selections and to stay away from the snake-oil. 3) He is right about 24-bit. It is a much better CAPTURE format than is 16-bit simply because it allows the recordist more headroom. 32-bit floating-point recording is even better. The ideal LPCM capture format would be 32-bit/88.2KHz. It moves the Nyquist frequency well outside the passband, and it gives the engineer lots of headroom. On balance, if you know what you are doing you can make great-sounding recordings with 16/44. 24 bits gets you 144 dB dynamic range, but in fact audio gear that performs at the even *just* 20 bit level is still not sold on every street corner. There are few live venues and recording studios that have even 13 bits of acosutical dynamic range. In a studio environment, this is absolutely true. However it is less true in location recording. The ability to have plenty of headroom is more than just a luxury. Sometimes it is the difference between success and failure - especially if you are recording a group cold. 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! I don't know about that. In my tests and usage FLAC has proven itself to be bit-perfect and sonically ideal. However, I have to admit that its relatively gentle approximately 2:1 compression is not why I like it or use it. What I like about FLAC is its support for tagging that thoroughly eclipses what legacy .wav files support. Well a lot of research has been done by a Dr. Charles Zeilig whose tests seem to show that FLAC algorithms vary all over the place and different settings yield different quality results. Apparently FLAC-Zero and FLAC-8 sound significantly poorer than does the WAV file from which it was compressed. Otherwise, the article is good reading and should be de riguer for anyone contemplating purchasing high-res downloads. Especially when combined what is known about 50% of extant so-called hi rez recordings having been through low-rez (typically analog recording) production steps that limit their as-delivered performance to something like 12 bit resolution and CD format bandpass, but with more response variations. I don't think that the fact that many of the sources for so-called Hi-Rez downloads are analog tapes is particularly important, but I do think that the fact that many recordings being sold as 24-bit 96 KHz and above are really red book masters that have up-sampled to 24/96 is a rip-off and those guilty of selling up-sampled standard resolution digital files as true high-rez should be punished. To put that another way: Digitizing an analog master tape with a 24-bit/88.2 KHz (or higher )ADC to yield a "high-rez" copy is OK, but up-sampling a standard resolution digital master to 24/88.2 KHz or higher is cheating. Of course, that's just my opinion, you understand. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC? FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software, different software compressors available out there use different FLAC compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Two of the most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8 compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound. This doesn't make any sense. FLAC files are bit-for-bit perfect when uncompressed. How can they sound different? I blame Audiophilia Nervosa. Andrew. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC? rgds \SK FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software, different software compressors available out there use different FLAC compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Zelig and Clawson have made a few contributions to the literature of audio nervosa, as another poster titled it. They are working outside of their area of professional endeavor and are in print as having made a large number of "Exceptional claims" that violate the laws of physics and reason. Two of the most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8 compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound. Since these are both lossless compresison schemes that return bit-perfect copies of the origional files, it is impossible for their use to result in measurably poorer sound. Any scheme that finds differences between arithmetically identical streams of data would ordinarly be considered to be greviously flawed. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:24:16 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: 4) What he really should be attacking is the high-resolution audio content provider's' insistence on using FLAC to deliver the files. FLAC is so flawed that the way that these sites use it, it's anything but lossless! Would you care to elaborate on that point? What are the flaws of FLAC? rgds \SK FLAC can be very good, but, according to Dr. Charles Zeilig and Mr. Jay Clawson who have written several papers about digital audio software, different software compressors available out there use different FLAC compression rates and different versions of the FLAC standard. Two of the most widely used compression schemes for FLAC are FLAC-8 and FLAC-Zero. Yet there are no such things. 8, 0, etc are so called compression levels -- those are command line options to set of 5-6 compression algorithm parameters (i.e. order of linear prediction, block size, use of exchaustive model search, use and type of so called midside coding (all technicalities of entropy extracion step), and range (min and max value) of so called Rice partitions orders -- again purely technical parameters of losless transcoding of fixed bit length words (numebers) into variable length ones where more frequent ones are shorter). Those levels translate into speed at which compression occurss and also influence average compression effectivenes. Decompression speed is very little affevted byt those, and decompression allways results in the *very* *same* *bit* *exact* copy of the original audio data. When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file, both FLAC -Zero and FLAC-8 When compared to a standard uncompressed WAV file there are *identical*. Both "flac -0" and "flac -8" as well as "flac -5" as well as "flac -l 12 -e -M -b 1152" generate files which decode to *bit* *exact* copies. Those men either don't have a clue or are deliberately dishonest or the combination of the two. compression settings yielded noticeably and measureably poorer sound. The only thing which could vary is so called replaygain feature which can be turned on (flac file must be processed by another tool from flac-toolset family which calculates it) -- this feature is automatic *volume* setting per track or per album. It's a pair of values stored in file header which describe average (averaged using psychoacouaticak model which is an elaboration on RMS level measurement) and peak levels. Those allow replay software or hradware to automatically adjust volume so varius recording play at similar loudness. That info must be explicitly added (as a result of additional processing) by someone preparing flac files. End even if present this feature could be ignored or even compeletly stripped out if one so desires. ReplayGain has nothing to -0 or -8 or -whatever_digit, not -l nor -r nor -m nor -M nor -b options (those options allow for finetuning of compression preformance i.e. speed against effectiveness). So, if those men wrote about that feature then all would be OK. But they did not. So again, those men talk about stuff they have no clue about (or in fact have but are dishonest). Since there's really no way for the consumer to know what setting is being used, It doesn't matter. Result is bit exact. Dr. Zeilig recommends that the high-res download industry avoid supplying downloaded high-resolution music in the FLAC or other compression formats, if possible. Dr. Zeilig (who apparently has PhD in molecular biology not audio engeneering, nor acoustics, not even physics nor physiology, and is known of similar antics since eighties) spouts utter nonsense. I am not allowed (by the moderators) to mention my source for this info, but you can find it online by googling "FLAC vs WAV" or just "Dr, Charles Zeilig and Jay Clawson". Again, FLAC is fully lossless format - i.e. it's bit exact. You could add WAV header to some application install file or even to this very text. You can then compress it using any compressor with any lossless FLAC compression sheme then uncompress and congert it bvack to WAV it using different uncompressor, then strip that WAV header and you'd get the exact copy of that file or newsgroup text. BTW found juicy fragments of that text series by those men, one is he "Although JRMC reported an accurate rip for all the speeds, and are bit-for-bit identical at all read speeds, we are still able to detect sonic differences in the resulting file. We know these results drive engineers crazy. We would love it if someone could come up with a definitive explanation that could provide input to software developers." I have an explanation but it's not to be shown in public forum due to significant amount of "explicit lyrics" and acustations off either serius mental shortcommings or serious, bordering criminal, dishonesty. IOW. all that could be dismissed safely -- they are either dishonest or incapable or both -- but for the reader all those options mean the same: dismiss it as it's just a load of nonsense. rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all. While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive nature of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist in analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz), then It turns out that sharp-cutoff digital filtering can be tuned so that it has pre-ringing, post-ringing, or anything in-between. These days most digital filter parameters are calculated using sophisticated mathematical tools such as Matlab. Worked out examples can be found he http://www.mathworks.com/products/ds...lpfirdemo.html. Digital Filters can be designed to be minimum phase, in which case there is no pre-ringing at all, just like conventional analog filters. Commonly they are designed to be linear phase or zero-phase which implies pre-ringing. Digital filtering of many kinds is easily implemented with software and applied to high sample rate digital audio files.DBTs have been done comparing various approaches. The general outcome has been that the 22.05 KHz Nyquist frequency of Red Book audio is high enough that there is already considerable margin, and the details of the filter design are fairly non-critical. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:22 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ): snip IOW. all that could be dismissed safely -- they are either dishonest or incapable or both -- but for the reader all those options mean the same: dismiss it as it's just a load of nonsense. Thanks, I read their "papers" and thought that the "points" system they used to evaluate playback "quality" was a bit suspicious, but the the articles seemed so "scholarly" that I accepted the results (until such time as those results were successfully challenged - as you have done). As for myself I've never used FLAC. I use Apple Lossless Compression in iTunes to rip my CDs for my iPod Touch and my Logitech Squeezebox. In an admittedly flawed DBT* between the ALC file and the CD itself, I could detect no difference between the two with multiple samples tried over multiple sessions. *The CD player and the Squeezebox Touch fed the same SPDIF inputs of a DAC via a digital input selector switch, and both played through the same amplifier at the same volume control settings through the same input, etc. A second party switched between the two digital inputs using a remote control. I couldn't see him (he was sitting behind me) and I had no idea when or even if he switched inputs. Not scientific, perhaps, but both sources were at EXACTLY the same level. My trusty HP3400A audio voltmeter assured me of that. rgds \SK |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:05:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:12:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote Let's face it, digital filtering has improved to the point where such humungeous (2 cotave) guard bands serve no purpose at all. While digital filtering is , as you say, very good, the precognitive nature of the digital filter makes "pre-ringing" a condition that doesn't exist in analog filtering. If one were to use a high sample rate (say, 88.2 KHz), then It turns out that sharp-cutoff digital filtering can be tuned so that it has pre-ringing, post-ringing, or anything in-between. These days most digital filter parameters are calculated using sophisticated mathematical tools such as Matlab. Worked out examples can be found he http://www.mathworks.com/products/dsp- system/demos.html?file=/products/demos/s hipping/dsp/lpfirdemo.html. Digital Filters can be designed to be minimum phase, in which case there is no pre-ringing at all, just like conventional analog filters. Commonly they are designed to be linear phase or zero-phase which implies pre-ringing. Digital filtering of many kinds is easily implemented with software and applied to high sample rate digital audio files.DBTs have been done comparing various approaches. The general outcome has been that the 22.05 KHz Nyquist frequency of Red Book audio is high enough that there is already considerable margin, and the details of the filter design are fairly non-critical. Thanks for the links. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ïðèåò.
áëþäà èç ñûðûõ ÿèö - ÿéöà ôàðøèðîàííûå ïàøòåòîì îðèãèíàëüíûå áëþäà èç ÿèö - ÿéöà ôàðøèðîàííûå ñåëåäêîé
__________________
àôåëàíäðà - õëîðîôèòóì î÷èùàåò îçäóõ |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:54:05 PM UTC-5, Audio Empire wrote:
Thanks, I read their "papers" and thought that the "points" system they u= sed=20 to evaluate playback "quality" was a bit suspicious, but the the articles= =20 seemed so "scholarly" that I accepted the results=20 Really? Including the last article, where they recommended upgrading power = cords? Worth at least 20 "points," as I recall. About what you'd expect fro= m The Absolute Sound. (BTW, what kind of secret source do you have for arti= cles that are available on any newsstand?) bob |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:33:24 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
Hmmm, I must have missed the part about the power cords, I don't remember them saying that. It's in the fourth and last article. Sort of tells you all you need to know about the basis of their "points" system, doesn't it? If Stephen Colbert were an audio reviewer, he would praise these articles for their scienciness. snip Now, where did I say that my source was secret? I said that the moderators of the rec.audio.high-end news group won't allow me to mention my source. I didn't say it was secret. I write for a number of audio publications and I wish to keep my real identity anonymous. The moderators of this NG don't want me to remain anonymous, they want me to fully disclose my affiliations. I offered to disclose that info to THEM, as long as they didn't spill the beans on the NG, but they found that condition unacceptable. The compromise we came to was that I didn't have to reveal my true identity, or tell what magazines I write for as long as I never directly MENTIONED any audio publications in any of my posts. Hence my inability to tell the previous poster where I read the aforementioned papers. No secret, here. Merely following orders. Fair enough. Referring to "my source" made it sound far more mysterious. Since I'm not bound by the same constraints, I'll just mention that these four articles have appeared in the last four issues of that bastion of science, The Absolute Sound. John Atkinson claims to have had first crack at them, and turned them down. But no science is too pseudo for Harley. bob |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:37:19 PM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
But this brings me to a problem=20 that I have with almost all audio publications. At most of the ones with= =20 which I am familiar, the various editors will tell you privately that the= =20 idea of power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables having any sonic w= orth=20 is ridiculous, but that those products represent good advertising dollars= ,=20 that they cannot afford to get on these manufacturers' bad side or to ign= ore=20 them. I find this somewhat dishonest. Yeah, but it's that or moronic. There's no third choice. I'd have bet they were true believers--either they believed in the magic of= cables from the get-go, or their economic interest led them to drink the K= ool-Aid. There's at least a tiny bit of integrity in knowing and admitting = privately that you're promoting snake oil. Emphasis on tiny. I'll tell you another little secret -=20 it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss= =20 (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these day= s=20 that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differen= ces.=20 At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike = than=20 they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more = are=20 more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be s= ure,=20 but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. This is hardly a secret to those of us familiar with Tom Nousaine's 1990 AE= S lit review of DBT amplifier tests. But this is actually very good news. I= t means there's a straightforward route to quality sound: 1. Choose a capable and good-sounding set of speakers. 2. Make sure you have enough amp power to drive them (trivial in most cases= , but there are exceptions). 3. Set up your room carefully (the hardest step of all). That's pretty much it. Now if we could find a few publications to promote t= his approach, rather than promoting the snake oil, maybe we can interest a= few more people in the benefits of good sound. bob |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...16&Itemi d=32 August |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote: I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. Note that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ... and it was similarly essentially perfect. All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 14, 12:23=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote: On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote: I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discu= ss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these = days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real diffe= rences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more ali= ke than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend mo= re are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to b= e sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316B= EE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening = levels driving normal speakers? Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. No= te that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ... and it was similarly essentially perfect. All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:38:54 PM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:
That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Put a cloth over them, match their output levels exactly, and try to tell which is which. Good luck. Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. You could, I suppose, but why bother? There's nothing wrong with having a little overkill in the system. Unless, that is, you want to take advantage of NAD's sterling reputation for quality control. ;-) |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 3/14/2012 4:20 PM, Scott wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:23 pm, Doug wrote: All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. Ah! It's simple ... the definition of amplifier. An amplifier amplifies the input signal. That is, it makes it larger, period. If it wants to do other thing, of course, it most certainly can. There's nothing wrong with adding "features" to an amplifier if someone wishes, so long as they are properly speced and labeled. Devices to do this, however, properly have other names. Such names are "tone controls" (which that NAD actually has!), or "equalizers" or "low pass or high pass filters" or "shelving filters" or in other cases "nonlinear stages" (i.e. single ended triodes with no feedback). Doug McDonald |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:38:54 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article ): On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote: I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...eo-Integrated- Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...16&Itemi d=32 August Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts. I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use the NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in a DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's, the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is. As to "downgrading" your Creek, it's an amp I'm not familiar with, so I cannot say. I do know that Creek is a British company known for modest powered amps, but I dare say that if your Creek is a recent solid-state amplifier (less than 20-years old) that it sounds every bit as good within its comfort zone as does a new NAD C 316 BEE. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:20:29 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 14, 12:23=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote: On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote: On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote: I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discuss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real differences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more alike than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend more are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to be sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. Note that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ... and it was similarly essentially perfect. All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi amplifiers do sound the same. Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". With modern solid state design, this is not too difficult a goal to achieve. The differences, when they occur, are usually down to design decisions made with regard to final selling price. The circuit topologies that yield theoretically "transparent" amplifiers are well known by all designers and are neither expensive nor exotic to execute. Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network feeding the circuit boards for both channels. Pry open the $2400 amp, and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are usually much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400 amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage rails. Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT. However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the bigger, stiffer power supply will likely sound better. *Actually, one of the problems with high-end audio equipment is that one cannot put "cosmetics" aside. Take two examples of the same electronics. Put one package in a stamped steel "U-tub" chassis with a simple silk-screened plastic or steel front panel with plastic knobs, and you could, perhaps, sell that amplifier for $600 . Put the other, identical, electronics package in an enclosure machined from a single billet of aluminum with a fancy three-quarter-inch thick engraved front panel with machined aluminum knobs and that amp could easily sell for $2400 or even more. I need not tell you that irrespective of the package, the two amps will sound identical. That's not to say that he who buys the $2400 version has been cheated. Some people just like to have nice things, and are willing to pay extra to have them. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 14, 7:58=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:20:29 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Mar 14, 12:23=3DA0pm, Doug McDonald wrote: On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote: On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote: I'll tell you another little secret - it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to dis= cuss (beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent thes= e days that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real dif= ferences. At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more a= like than they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend = more are more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to= be sure, but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening condition= s. That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 31= 6BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CT= H-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes.= Note that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ... and it was similarly essentially perfect. All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi amplifiers do sound the same. there is more int he world of amplifiers than just modern SS. Even so I'm not so sure this is entirely accurate. Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Mar 14, 7:53=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/14/2012 4:20 PM, Scott wrote: On Mar 14, 12:23 pm, Doug =A0wrote: All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers. Doug McDonald Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. Ah! It's simple ... the definition of amplifier. An amplifier amplifies the input signal. That is, it makes it larger, period. I didn't ask you what the defentiion f an amplifier is. I asked you where you got it? Who makes the rules? It was a rhetoritcal question. Ironically no amplifier actually does what you say an amplifier does so by your own defenition there are no amplifiers in this world. The bottom line is these semantic arguments are exercises in logical fallacies. If it wants to do other thing, of course, it most certainly can. There's nothing wrong with adding "features" to an amplifier if someone wishes, so long as they are properly speced and labeled. Devices to do this, however, properly have other names. Such names are "tone controls" (which that NAD actually has!), or "equalizers" or "low pass or high pass filters" or "shelving filters" or in other cases "nonlinear stages" (i.e. single ended triodes with no f= eedback). Doug McDonald Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On 2012-03-15 03:54, Audio Empire wrote:
Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts. Indeed, but does that have any significance if you live in an apartment, have neighbours to think about and never play really loud. I guess not. I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use the NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in a DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's, the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is. I see nothing spectacular with the Magneplanar's 4 Ohm impedance and 86 dB sensitivity in itself. I have had a pair of tiny Dali Royal Menuet with the same impedance and sensivity and I used them with an old integrated 25 W Sansui amplifier without any clipping issues. As to "downgrading" your Creek, it's an amp I'm not familiar with, so I cannot say. I do know that Creek is a British company known for modest powered amps, but I dare say that if your Creek is a recent solid-state amplifier (less than 20-years old) that it sounds every bit as good within its comfort zone as does a new NAD C 316 BEE. I may do a blind test to verify this. August |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
Scott wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:58?pm, Audio Empire wrote: Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. There's nothing personal about this, it's the definition of what an ideal amplifier is. The high-end industry may well understand something different, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. The high-end industry abuses all manner of well-understood terms. The idea of an ideal amplifier is well-understood as a term of art: it's something you would be likely to learn in EE 101. See here for a definition: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eng.../AmpLec05.html If you instead want to talk about "my ideal amplifier" as something different, fine. But Mr. Empire is correct. Andrew. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network feeding the circuit boards for both channels. Sounds like a Behringer A500. Pry open the $2400 amp, and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are usually much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400 amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage rails. Sounds like the Pass-designed 90 pound monster that I owned for a few months a few years back. I listened to it, and I put it on the test bench. But, you left out the 24 high current output devices as compared to 4. Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT. Exactly. This was also true with speakers that pushed the limits - went below their rated 4 ohms at some frequencies, in-band. This was also true as long as we kept both amplifiers out of clipping, which the cheaper amp did a nice job of, as long as you used it within its ratings. So high power operation wasn't a problem for it. However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the bigger, stiffer power supply will likely sound better. It turned out that the monster was a 120 wpc power amp at 1 KHz and 8 ohm loads. But it was more like a 500+ wpc amp with really low impedances (e.g. 2 ohms) and low frequencies (e.g. 20 Hz). I don't know exactly how far it went, because I only had a 20 amp circuit to plug it into. On balance, amplifying unclipped audio while driving even the more extreme but competently designs speakers out there was not a problem for the smaller amp. A listening test could be rigged so that it appeared that the monster amp "walked all over" the smaler one. But, it would be a rigged test, not an honest one, and not one that could be even remotely considered to be reasonable or representative. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...eo-Integrated- Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...16&Itemi d=32 August Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts. So, this is not a fair comparison. BTW I took a look at the Dartzeel, and at $18,000 it is a pale shadow of the Pass-designed monster amp that I mentioned in the other post. For openers, it weighs about 1/3 less, and appears to have only about 1/4 as many output devices, despite being rated at 25% more power. Furthermore, the output devices in the Dartzeel are plastic-tab one-screw mounted devices, not a true all-metal TO-3 two-screw mounted output devices, such as used in the monster I had. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:54:30 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): Sorry but I don't accept your rules on amplifiers. They may work for you but they are not universal. I am quite happy with the euphonic colorations I get from my amplifier (which is an amplifier whether you like it or not). And I assure you that you can't duplicate those euphonic colorations with tone controls or any other stock features found on other amplifiers. You are free to like what you like but not free to rewrite defenitions to suit your perosnal tastes and prejudices. Amplifiers can certainly be built (either purposely or not) to add euphonic colorations to the sound. Speaker cables and interconnects can be built using external components to act as fixed filters too in order to suppress some portion of the audio spectrum to "enhance" some other portion. But just as such cables are no longer merely conductors, euphonic amplifiers are no longer proper amplifiers. An ideal amplifier is one that should, by the standard definition found in almost any electronic engineering textbook, increases the amplitude of any signal fed to it without adding or taking away anything from the original signal. IOW, whether you like euphonic colorations or not, euphonic colorations are distortion, and distortion is something. ideally, to be avoided as much as possible. Modern solid state amps have reduced distortion to vanishingly low levels at practically all price points in audio. Without distortion and without large frequency response aberrations, there is little to keep modern amps from sounding pretty much alike, and in any of the DBTs to which I have been privy, they do. That doesn't mean that there can't be and won't be SOME differences, but it does mean that they are generally trivial (under normal listening conditions) and difficult to hear even in a carefully set up DBT. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.* Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim. No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION. The function of an amplifier is to increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and taking nothing away. Remember, amplifiers amplify more than just audio signals. Do you want the amplifiers in an MRI machine to introduce distortion and perhaps cause a diagnostician to miss a patient's tumor? Do you want an airliner's radar amplifier to be non-linear and make an oncoming plane seem further away than it really is? Do you want the video amp in your TV monitor to display a distorted picture? Of course not. You want all of these amplifiers to do what amplifiers are supposed to do. Increase the amplitude of the signals fed to them without adding or taking away anything. The fact that you LIKE certain types of audio distortion is irrelevant to the definition of an amplifier. You are free to buy all the purposely non-linear amplifiers you want. But that doesn't change the definition of an amplifier in any way shape or form. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:55:11 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article ): On 2012-03-15 03:54, Audio Empire wrote: Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts. Indeed, but does that have any significance if you live in an apartment, have neighbours to think about and never play really loud. I guess not. I'm sure that with a good pair of fairly efficient speakers (so as to use the NAD in it's "comfort zone", power-wise), that the NAD and the Dartzeel will probably be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from one another in a DBT. Now if we compare both amps with, say, a pair of Magneplanar MG3.7's, the NAD's modest power output will give it up for what it is. I see nothing spectacular with the Magneplanar's 4 Ohm impedance and 86 dB sensitivity in itself. I have had a pair of tiny Dali Royal Menuet with the same impedance and sensivity and I used them with an old integrated 25 W Sansui amplifier without any clipping issues. Maggies are very power hungry. Static sensitivity specs don't tell the whole story. With the wide dynamic-range material that I mentioned, and at very high SPLs, a pair of Magneplanar MG 3.7s will quickly bring even a very good 40 W/channel amp to it's knees. At normal listening levels, of course, 40 Watts, and perhaps even 25 will possibly work fine, I haven't tried, so I can't say for sure. [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
In article , Scott
wrote: There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same. I guess whether that is wrong or not depends on what you are after. Most people, I believe, would prefer everything from the source to the ear to be as transparent as possible. The only reason I can think of to use the amp you describe is to offset an opposite coloration in another component. However, I suspect that would be impossible to get right. I heard the OP saying that all amps that are designed to be transparent, which is what I mean by well designed, will sound the same in their comfort zone. I have felt that way for years, but I am more interested in the music than the final little bit of detail in the sound. From my point of view, the speakers are still the weak point and that is compounded by the room. However, modern DSP techniques are even solving that problem. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:07:40 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Mar 14, 7:58=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: [quoted text deleted -- deb] Actually, within certain parameters, modern solid-state hi-fi amplifiers do sound the same. Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a straight wire with gain". With modern solid state design, this is not too difficult a goal to achieve. The differences, when they occur, are usually down to design decisions made with regard to final selling price. The circuit topologies that yield theoretically "transparent" amplifiers are well known by all designers and are neither expensive nor exotic to execute. Take two 150 Watt/Channel designs. One sells for $600 and the one sells for $2400. What is likely to be the difference? Well, cosmetics aside*, the difference is likely to be the power supplies. Pry open the $600 example and you are likely to find a single torroidial power transformer feeding both channels with single bridge rectifier and a couple of inexpensive electrolytic capacitors in an RC Pi network feeding the circuit boards for both channels. Pry open the $2400 amp, and you'll likely find either TWO torroidial transformers or one much larger transformer. If two, then they are likely to be larger than the single torroid in the $600 unit. The single transformer likely will have separate windings for each channel, each feeding a separate bridge rectifier, and separate filtering networks that are =A0usually much larger than the network in the cheaper amp, and perhaps the $2400 amp will have both channel's power supplies bypassed with audio grade caps and perhaps even have regulator circuits applied to the voltage rails. Will they sound different? Under normal loads and at average listening levels, it would likely be difficult to tell the two apart in a DBT. However, if pushed to high volume with very wide dynamic range material into relatively low efficiency speakers, the the amp with the bigger, stiffer =A0power supply will likely sound better. All this exercise demonstrates is that rated power output into a single load spec is insufficient to define an amplifiers performance capability. For example, digging further into these amps performance characteristics one would likely find the well designed amp can deliver 300 watts into a 4 ohm load while the lesser amp will probably not. Anyone who looks no further than a single power rating spec into an undefined load for amplifier performance and is surprised by differences is simply not doing their homework. Congratulations! You have managed to miss the point entirely - which was that modern solid-state amps differ only in things like power supply design and superficial circuit topology and the degree of fancy case-work. otherwise, class AB amps are all pretty similar and under normal listening conditions are all pretty much transparent - regardless of cost. You have to stress most amps in some way before any real differences make themselves known. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
So-called high rez audio downloads debunked - again!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:08:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316BEE will sound practically the same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening levels driving normal speakers? Maybe I will consider downgrading my Creek Destiny to a NAD then. http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ereo-Integrate d-Amplifier http://www.dartzeel.com/index.php?op...d=16&Itemi d= 32 Well, let's not get silly, here, but to be honest, the major difference between the Dartzeel 8550 integrated and the NAD integrated are their power output. The NAD is rated at 40-Watts/channel and the Dartzeel at 225. After all, 40 Watts is only 40 Watts. So, this is not a fair comparison. BTW I took a look at the Dartzeel, and at $18,000 it is a pale shadow of the Pass-designed monster amp that I mentioned in the other post. For openers, it weighs about 1/3 less, and appears to have only about 1/4 as many output devices, despite being rated at 25% more power. Furthermore, the output devices in the Dartzeel are plastic-tab one-screw mounted devices, not a true all-metal TO-3 two-screw mounted output devices, such as used in the monster I had. Are you trying to say that the Dartzeel is likely overpriced for what it is? If so, I'll agree. Lots of modern high-end equipment is. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Much So-Called Digital Ringing Debunked | High End Audio | |||
Downloads home · Trial downloads · Updates · Exchange · | Pro Audio | |||
High - end downloads wma -> dvd-A | High End Audio | |||
McCarty BULLSHIT debunked - affidavits on file | Marketplace | |||
Free MANUAL downloads Vintage Audio Radio | Vacuum Tubes |