"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

This does not mean they are accurate. Aural exciters use this
very technique.

Ian


Pardon my hignorance.....What's an Aural exciter and what is it used for?

The original Aural Exciter was a box made by Aphex several decades
ago. It was flavour-of-the-month for a time. I think at the
beginning you could only hire it, not buy it outright. It gave your
recordings special "magic" ;-) It was mostly even-order distortion, I
think. Probably some eq and compression as well.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 5 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.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 5 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.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

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.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I don't pretend to have golden lug-'oles either. I'm also a musician, but
I've never done it professionally.


I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

With the exception of speakers, the differences between roughly-similar
qualities of kit can be hard to detect, but become rather easier when
they're of widely differing quality. To my mind, speakers have the most
noticable effect on the overall character of the sound, such that upgrading
by an order of magnitude might bring a clearer sound, but it still might not
sound good - there's much variety between speakers themselves, and they all
interact with the room in their own ways. It's a bit like choosing an
electric guitar and amplifier - two halves of one instrument which must be
chosen so that they complemet each other.


What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

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.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I don't pretend to have golden lug-'oles either. I'm also a musician, but
I've never done it professionally.


I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

With the exception of speakers, the differences between roughly-similar
qualities of kit can be hard to detect, but become rather easier when
they're of widely differing quality. To my mind, speakers have the most
noticable effect on the overall character of the sound, such that upgrading
by an order of magnitude might bring a clearer sound, but it still might not
sound good - there's much variety between speakers themselves, and they all
interact with the room in their own ways. It's a bit like choosing an
electric guitar and amplifier - two halves of one instrument which must be
chosen so that they complemet each other.


What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Glenn Booth
wrote:
Hi,

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

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.

I think that "dumbing down" is right; however it may not be only the
reader that is 'too dim to understand'.

What irrirates me is that I feel sure that most readers are *not* to dim to
follow these matters. It is just that some effort on the part of the writer
and editor is required to explain clearly and accurately. However, this
takes us to your points, below... :-/

I deal almost daily with journalists associated with the PC press and I
increasingly find that 1. Few of them have any training as journalists
and 2. Even fewer have any real grasp of engineering. I have refused to
submit several products for review, simply because after talking with
the reviewer, I found that they did not have the technical know-how to
produce a valid, meaningful review. I get the impression that at least
some of the audio press is similar.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. My experience with/of audio journalists
over the years is quite mixed. 20+ years ago many were excellent. They knew
enough to design and analyse equipment as well as test and evaluate it. Now
very few seem to me to have an understanding that extends beyond knowing
the current buzzwords and acronims, and having 'fashionable' views, dressed
up in techno-babble. I could give examples, but it seems unfair to pick on
one or two as the problem seems endemic. :-/

Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so there."

Exactly; and provided they are sufficiently vague (i.e. they don't tell
any provable lies), many readers will not question their conclusions.

Again, annoyingly, when they publish measurements and make 'factual'
statements they are often incorrect, but without clear explanations or
other reliable sources, many readers would have no way to know this.

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 , Glenn Booth
wrote:
Hi,

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

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.

I think that "dumbing down" is right; however it may not be only the
reader that is 'too dim to understand'.

What irrirates me is that I feel sure that most readers are *not* to dim to
follow these matters. It is just that some effort on the part of the writer
and editor is required to explain clearly and accurately. However, this
takes us to your points, below... :-/

I deal almost daily with journalists associated with the PC press and I
increasingly find that 1. Few of them have any training as journalists
and 2. Even fewer have any real grasp of engineering. I have refused to
submit several products for review, simply because after talking with
the reviewer, I found that they did not have the technical know-how to
produce a valid, meaningful review. I get the impression that at least
some of the audio press is similar.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. My experience with/of audio journalists
over the years is quite mixed. 20+ years ago many were excellent. They knew
enough to design and analyse equipment as well as test and evaluate it. Now
very few seem to me to have an understanding that extends beyond knowing
the current buzzwords and acronims, and having 'fashionable' views, dressed
up in techno-babble. I could give examples, but it seems unfair to pick on
one or two as the problem seems endemic. :-/

Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so there."

Exactly; and provided they are sufficiently vague (i.e. they don't tell
any provable lies), many readers will not question their conclusions.

Again, annoyingly, when they publish measurements and make 'factual'
statements they are often incorrect, but without clear explanations or
other reliable sources, many readers would have no way to know this.

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 , Ian Bell
wrote:


Exactly. The thing most people forget is that *all* push pull systems
are very good a canceling even harmonic distortion (the type we don't
mind/like even) which just leaves odd harmonic distortions in the output
which the ear abhors. This may explain why some people prefer the sound
of single ended class A amplifiers which produce predominantly second
harmonic distortion. This does not mean they are accurate. Aural
exciters use this very technique.

The difficulty with the abive view is that:

1) In most cases with decent amplifiers, the THD level stays well below
0.1% from below clipping until the signal vanishes into the noise. This can
be the case for both class-A and AB designs. (So far as I know, no-one uses
class B for audio, and has not done so for many years.)

2) Whenever tests are carried out, people do not show any ability to notice
THD levels of 0.1% or less.

Thus the source of any possible audible differences may well not be in this
specific area. FWIW I have my own suspicions about this, but the matter
seems to me to be far fro settled.

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 , Ian Bell
wrote:


Exactly. The thing most people forget is that *all* push pull systems
are very good a canceling even harmonic distortion (the type we don't
mind/like even) which just leaves odd harmonic distortions in the output
which the ear abhors. This may explain why some people prefer the sound
of single ended class A amplifiers which produce predominantly second
harmonic distortion. This does not mean they are accurate. Aural
exciters use this very technique.

The difficulty with the abive view is that:

1) In most cases with decent amplifiers, the THD level stays well below
0.1% from below clipping until the signal vanishes into the noise. This can
be the case for both class-A and AB designs. (So far as I know, no-one uses
class B for audio, and has not done so for many years.)

2) Whenever tests are carried out, people do not show any ability to notice
THD levels of 0.1% or less.

Thus the source of any possible audible differences may well not be in this
specific area. FWIW I have my own suspicions about this, but the matter
seems to me to be far fro settled.

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 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 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.....)

"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.....)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

Amp is up to 40%, so in the limit of a very expensive sound system,
you would spend 40% on the Amp

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get paid
for?


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

Amp is up to 40%, so in the limit of a very expensive sound system,
you would spend 40% on the Amp

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get paid
for?


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Amp is up to 40%, so in the limit of a very expensive sound system,
you would spend 40% on the Amp

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get paid
for?



They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Amp is up to 40%, so in the limit of a very expensive sound system,
you would spend 40% on the Amp

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get paid
for?



They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Keith G wrote:

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get
paid for?

They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

Plugging vinyl again, eh, Keith? :-)


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Keith G wrote:

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get
paid for?

They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

Plugging vinyl again, eh, Keith? :-)


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

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get
paid for?

They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

Plugging vinyl again, eh, Keith? :-)


:-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

And 60% on the speakers = 100% of the budget. How do the sources get
paid for?

They don't - you put them on yer plastic.......

Plugging vinyl again, eh, Keith? :-)


:-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

Pardon my hignorance.....What's an Aural exciter and what is it used
for?

The original Aural Exciter was a box made by Aphex several decades
ago. It was flavour-of-the-month for a time. I think at the
beginning you could only hire it, not buy it outright. It gave your
recordings special "magic" ;-) It was mostly even-order distortion, I
think. Probably some eq and compression as well.

ISTR to remember a 1970's Steely Dan album proudly announcing that the
sounds it contained had NOT been passed through the Aphex Aural Exciter :-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

Pardon my hignorance.....What's an Aural exciter and what is it used
for?

The original Aural Exciter was a box made by Aphex several decades
ago. It was flavour-of-the-month for a time. I think at the
beginning you could only hire it, not buy it outright. It gave your
recordings special "magic" ;-) It was mostly even-order distortion, I
think. Probably some eq and compression as well.

ISTR to remember a 1970's Steely Dan album proudly announcing that the
sounds it contained had NOT been passed through the Aphex Aural Exciter :-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.

Ricki Lee Jones vocal "Pirates" on vinyl on my original, 25 year old Planar
3 makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up - doesn't do it from CD
despite CD player worth many times P3
However - CD doesn't skip when I boogie to Montrose or Led Zep......
eg

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.

Ricki Lee Jones vocal "Pirates" on vinyl on my original, 25 year old Planar
3 makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up - doesn't do it from CD
despite CD player worth many times P3
However - CD doesn't skip when I boogie to Montrose or Led Zep......
eg

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

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.


A lot of what you pay for in a "good" DAC is the quality of the non-digital
side. The power supplies and the audio amps as well as the attention to
detail in putting it all together. I suspect this has more influence on the
"sound" than the digital side.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

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.


A lot of what you pay for in a "good" DAC is the quality of the non-digital
side. The power supplies and the audio amps as well as the attention to
detail in putting it all together. I suspect this has more influence on the
"sound" than the digital side.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"David" wrote in message
...


Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound
check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For
Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.

Ricki Lee Jones vocal "Pirates" on vinyl on my original, 25 year old
Planar
3 makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up - doesn't do it from CD
despite CD player worth many times P3




Er, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I'm 'with you all the way'
on this an' all......

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"David" wrote in message
...


Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound
check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For
Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.

Ricki Lee Jones vocal "Pirates" on vinyl on my original, 25 year old
Planar
3 makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up - doesn't do it from CD
despite CD player worth many times P3




Er, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I'm 'with you all the way'
on this an' all......

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

One simple but effective way I have found to test hi-fi is to have it
playing a recording, and then have a microphone positioned in an ideal
location recording the output.

With really high end stuff, the recording will be indistinguishable from
the
original, but of course there is degredation directly related to the
speakers/amps, ...........................

Duh??

I would like to see the exchange if someone turned up with anechoic pads,
B&K, test tones etc. to check out the latest micro system in Curries sale.

eg

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

One simple but effective way I have found to test hi-fi is to have it
playing a recording, and then have a microphone positioned in an ideal
location recording the output.

With really high end stuff, the recording will be indistinguishable from
the
original, but of course there is degredation directly related to the
speakers/amps, ...........................

Duh??

I would like to see the exchange if someone turned up with anechoic pads,
B&K, test tones etc. to check out the latest micro system in Curries sale.

eg

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:26:25 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

(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.....)

Wrong. Unless you restrict yourself to films of less than 100 ASA, the
Canon 1Ds will beat the pants off any Leica. The jury may be out on
the Hassel, since the digiback for that is about 20 grand!

In much the same way, a good SS amp will beat the pants off your
rose-tinted valve amps. A bad recording is not *supposed* to sound
relaxing........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering