"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:23:32 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided
their readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to
even try and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better
than Y, so there."

Dumbing down implies that there were providing intelligent reviews not
so long ago. I cannot recollect this happening during my adult life.

You must be younger than myself. :-) (Mind you, who isn't? ;- )

Has the Scottish Yew Year festivities been more than usually good this
year, Jim? :-) tongue firmly in cheek

Well, we survived with most brain cells intact... ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Chris Morriss
wrote:


In all this, we mustn't forget that the even-harmonic cancellation
really only happens in class-A operation. When the amp goes into
class-B, and one of the active elements is cut off, then there is no
mechanism to cancel the even harmonics.

Erm. As I understand it, the definition of class B (as distinct from AB) is
that the upper and lower devices are nominally *never* symultaneously
conducting, but hand over at zero. I would prefer to re-word descriptions
like the above as it may lead to some confusion and talking at cross
purposes. In class A the output devices are *always* conducting. In class B
only one at a time conducts, and in class AB you transit from both to one
as the signal varies.

So far as I know, no-one uses class B for audio.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Chris Morriss
wrote:


In all this, we mustn't forget that the even-harmonic cancellation
really only happens in class-A operation. When the amp goes into
class-B, and one of the active elements is cut off, then there is no
mechanism to cancel the even harmonics.

Erm. As I understand it, the definition of class B (as distinct from AB) is
that the upper and lower devices are nominally *never* symultaneously
conducting, but hand over at zero. I would prefer to re-word descriptions
like the above as it may lead to some confusion and talking at cross
purposes. In class A the output devices are *always* conducting. In class B
only one at a time conducts, and in class AB you transit from both to one
as the signal varies.

So far as I know, no-one uses class B for audio.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:

I think that's absolutely right.

I admit that until recently I thought the hi-fi magazines had
deteriorated since I was first interested (about 1975). However in a
New Year clear-out I found a small cache of HFN&RR issues and annuals
ranging from 1977 to 1985.

Contrary to my expectations, I was struck by how similar they were then
to the stuff we now get fed by the hi-fi press. Even the same sorts of
controversy over cables and the like.

FWIW I have issues of the mags back to the 1950's. My own view is that the
reviews improved up until the mid 1960's, and remained quite decent (for
the then-current state of knowledge) until about the mid 1970's. then began
to decline.

Hence I'd agree that if you start from about 1977 they have tended to
decline or be poorer. However there was still some quite good reviews even
at the end of the 70's and just into the 80's. (For example, NK's excellent
measurements and detective work on arm and turntable resonances around
then.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:

I think that's absolutely right.

I admit that until recently I thought the hi-fi magazines had
deteriorated since I was first interested (about 1975). However in a
New Year clear-out I found a small cache of HFN&RR issues and annuals
ranging from 1977 to 1985.

Contrary to my expectations, I was struck by how similar they were then
to the stuff we now get fed by the hi-fi press. Even the same sorts of
controversy over cables and the like.

FWIW I have issues of the mags back to the 1950's. My own view is that the
reviews improved up until the mid 1960's, and remained quite decent (for
the then-current state of knowledge) until about the mid 1970's. then began
to decline.

Hence I'd agree that if you start from about 1977 they have tended to
decline or be poorer. However there was still some quite good reviews even
at the end of the 70's and just into the 80's. (For example, NK's excellent
measurements and detective work on arm and turntable resonances around
then.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:56:22 +0000, Wally wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

The point is rather whether you can show him an expensive unit that
sounds better than the £100 one ;-)

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe the
floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has digital out,
and it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a similar order of
magnitude.

....but do you think you could tell the difference between your old player
connected to your DAC via a digital link, and your mate's Arcam connected
to the same DAC via a digital link?

I'd suggest not, unless one of them is malfunctioning.

DACs are known to have an impact on sound. I'm not sure what the state of
the art is now, but the various newish and very cheap CD-Rom/personal CD
players (i.e. probably using new 1-bit DACs) that I have sound *better*
than my 13 year old Aiwa midi (which has a olde-fashioned 16-bit DAC).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:56:22 +0000, Wally wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

The point is rather whether you can show him an expensive unit that
sounds better than the £100 one ;-)

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe the
floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has digital out,
and it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a similar order of
magnitude.

....but do you think you could tell the difference between your old player
connected to your DAC via a digital link, and your mate's Arcam connected
to the same DAC via a digital link?

I'd suggest not, unless one of them is malfunctioning.

DACs are known to have an impact on sound. I'm not sure what the state of
the art is now, but the various newish and very cheap CD-Rom/personal CD
players (i.e. probably using new 1-bit DACs) that I have sound *better*
than my 13 year old Aiwa midi (which has a olde-fashioned 16-bit DAC).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

...but do you think you could tell the difference between your old
player connected to your DAC via a digital link, and your mate's
Arcam connected to the same DAC via a digital link?

I think detecting a difference in sound quality in this situation would be
next to impossible.


DACs are known to have an impact on sound. I'm not sure what the
state of the art is now, but the various newish and very cheap
CD-Rom/personal CD players (i.e. probably using new 1-bit DACs) that
I have sound *better* than my 13 year old Aiwa midi (which has a
olde-fashioned 16-bit DAC).

I don't really know which conversion system is supposedly better. The DAC is
several years old (1990-ish?), while the DVD was bought new about a year
ago. It's interesting to note that the DVD player has a quoted noise figure
of 70dB, compared to the DAC's at around 94dB.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

...but do you think you could tell the difference between your old
player connected to your DAC via a digital link, and your mate's
Arcam connected to the same DAC via a digital link?

I think detecting a difference in sound quality in this situation would be
next to impossible.


DACs are known to have an impact on sound. I'm not sure what the
state of the art is now, but the various newish and very cheap
CD-Rom/personal CD players (i.e. probably using new 1-bit DACs) that
I have sound *better* than my 13 year old Aiwa midi (which has a
olde-fashioned 16-bit DAC).

I don't really know which conversion system is supposedly better. The DAC is
several years old (1990-ish?), while the DVD was bought new about a year
ago. It's interesting to note that the DVD player has a quoted noise figure
of 70dB, compared to the DAC's at around 94dB.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"David" wrote in message
...

Btw - what thousand pound amplifiers have a several percent distortion?

Single-ended triode amps do - and they can cost a *lot* more than
that!

But what are we measuring? Valve "distotion" is viewed as a rosie glow.
Transistor x/over or switching distortion in a poorly designed (or
over-driven) solid state amp of only a few 10ths % is unbearable!

Not all distotions are created eaqual - but they are all deviations from
the
"straight wire with gain" model of the "ideal" amp.



Which doesn't exist or ever will - it's up to the individual to make the
necessary trade-offs between 'accurate' and 'pleasant' to listen to in terms
of 'distortion'.

My own view (surprise surprise) is that valves and analogue, while
supposedly less 'accurate', are *far* more pleasant (and a lot less tiring)
to listen to than SS/digital in any form (which is downright unpleasant by
comparison IMO). Where simple 'pure sound' is more important than
'musicality' (Saving Private Ryan for example) I find digital/SS is plenty
good enough - much the same way that the speed/convenience/economy of
digital photography outweighs the faff, hassle and expense of the 'wet'
process for me, these days.

(No-one in his right mind though is going to suggest that 'digital' will
ever match the sheer quality of a top notch Hasselblad/Zeiss T* or Leica B&W
bromide print though, despite that in terms of 'hue', if nothing else, it is
immediately a lot less 'accurate' than a colour digital photo from the
outset.....)