Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

I've moved this from the thread "Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)"
which at present centres on the different matter of the double
standards of the "engineers" who claim all amps sound the same (when
appropriately applied) or should sound the same, but who every now and
again tell us how this amp or that sounds "better". I don't see much
joy in discussing their hypocrisy with a bunch of stumblebum
soundbiters, though I delight in discussing it with more articulate
foils. This article is about how the engineers, and the "engineers" too
(because we seem to have more of them), are right at least half the
time, and possibly on both counts, so if you're squeamish, or a SETtie,
or open-minded, do yourself a favour and spare your blood pressure by
not reading further.

The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity
reproduction of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high
fidelity" or "hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise
description and have been a precise description since roundabout WW2.
We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the
concert hall.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert
hall, and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high"
fidelity.

The sort of "engineers" who are lost once one proceeds beyond the
easiest element of the audio chain (by a magnitude or several), the
amplifier, say they are not responsible for the failure to achieve
unqualified fidelity. Their responsibility ends when they faithfully
reproduce the master tape in the home. Their concept of faithful
reproduction of the mastertape is defined by them as noiselessness and
measured as very low harmonic distortion, which today is trivial to
achieve in silicon amps. Even distortion many tens decibels below
audibility is today trivial to achieve in push-pull tube amps, and
merely expensive rather than difficult to achieve even in single-ended
triode amps. The more reasonable of this lowest, least imaginative
level of "engineers" therefore have an irrefutable point (if one
accepts their presumptions): once success has been achieved in lowering
THD to almost vanishing point, all amplfiers, including valve
amplifiers should sound the same. The cheapest possible amplifier with
reasonable THD, capable of driving any reasonably conceivable speaker,
should therefore do everyone. By the laws of economics, eventually the
cheapest, inevitably silicon, amplifier will have a monopoly. In an
ideal world this will, on current showing, probably be a Class D
digital amp, because nothing else can be built cheaper for more power
with lower distortion. Some of the "engineers" prove that they are at
least nominally human by displaying an irrational hatred of tube amps
well beyond the rational (if one agrees with the assumptions so far)
objection to them on grounds of cost. All of this works well, but also
only works *if* the listener is willing to separate matters of culture
from technology.

There is another view. It proceeds empirically. It might be called the
"cultural" view. To it belongs those who regularly attend concerts, who
are unimpressed by the technological fads of the anoraks, who have
cultivated and educated tastes, who have the confidence not to be
fashion victims, and the intelligence and will to stand up against what
they see as a tide of technoligical barbarism even in the arts. Though
these audiophiles may not know much about the tricky technicalities of
loudspeakers, they instinctively chooses the loudspeakers first, if not
at first certainly by the second or third hi-fi setup bought. This
group soon becomes dissatisfied with the mantra "all amplifiers sound
the same", and the excuse, "we reproduce the master tape with inaudible
noise--what more do you want?" They can hear for themselves that what
is produced is a long way from what they heard in the concert hall.
They soon discover that not all amplifiers are equal because they do
not all sound the same. On investigation they soon discover that all
these amplifiers which do not sound the same for practical purposes
measure the same. How can it be that some amplifiers cast a cold chill
over music while measuring the same as the ones which come closer to
the experience in the concert hall? It is not a big step to conclude
that the wrong thing is being measured. Next they discover that the
worst-measuring amps sound the most like the music in the concert hall,
and by then their faith in the "engineers" is totally destroyed.

So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home. The two that come closest, in the opinion of
cultured concert goers, are the ones considered most wretched according
to their preferred "standards" by the "engineers" in hi-fi: The Yamaha
digital signal processor with its soundshaping, and the wasteful and
expensive Class A tube amp. (The SET fashion is merely a distraction; I
haven proven again and again in blind tests that what professional
musicians prefer is Class A zero (or very low) negative feedback sound,
not necessarily single-ended or triode sound.)

There is yet another view. This is held by those who claim that they
have a right to reproduce music in their homes in a form that pleases
them best, without reference to the concert hall. They are in the vast
majority and include the growing AV movement. They are not discussed
here; thi discussion is between a couple of elites in miniscule niche
markets all sitting on a single pinhead. That is also, ironically, the
problem for the "engineers", that they have talked themselves into a
corner of lowest common denominator, cheapest possible machinery, yet
wish to present themselves as an elite who have better ears or better
taste or simply more money than anyone else. Delicious!

******

Let's flesh out this argument with a specific example:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But surely the most famous of all 'they all sound alike' tests was between
the Quad II valve, 303 and 405 SS amps? Which certainly won't sound like
an SET. And I'd guess the Krell would fit in with the Quads on that test -
which involved running those amps within spec.

Thanks, Dave. I wasn't at the original test but I have owned all these
Quad amps you mention, and currently own two of them, the Quad II tube
and 405 SS. I also have the appropriate speakers, the ESL and ESL63. In
addition I have a wide variety of other SS and tube amps. My tube amps
include single-ended triode (SET) amps from one-third watt to 75W, and
push-pull tube amps from 10W to over 100W, so I can make a direct
comparison at any power I please (though I am thoroughly contemptuous
of the "engineers" claim that you need a gazillion watts and even more
contemptuous of their claim that the only valid listening is at high
volume).

My memory of the 303 is that it definitely sounded different from the
Quad II and from the 405 as well, and that the difference was marked.
But that is memory, so let us leave the 303 there and concentrate on
amps I have sitting on the table right next to me.

I can state categorically that to me the Quad II tube and 405 MkII amps
sound different on any of the speakers available to me right now (Bang
& Olufsen S25, Quad ESL. Quad ESL63, Lowther horns of various types,
various DIY speaks with drivers from Scanspeak to guitar specialties).
It also isn't difficult to determine that the QII and 405 sound
different from several other silicon and tube amps both bought and of
my own design and construction.

In fact, the QII and the 405 are closer to each other and to my
favourites among my other amps than they are to their respective types
(SS or tube). The key is that both these amps lack that offensive
sharpness which after an hour fatigues the listener. My amps are on a
minimum of sixteen hours a day in my study or studio and often for 30
hours straight if I'm on a roll. I require civilized amps. I like
civilized music, civilized arts in general; I don't go to a concert or
to the theatre to be harassed by the egos or political whims of idiots,
so why should I permit my hi-fi to cast a chill over the pleasure of my
day?

Yet that is precisely what the SS amps, and the tube amps, of the
"engineers" do: they cast a chill which wasn't present in the concert
hall. The elements of this chill might consist of a spurious precision
(do you really want to hear the spittle burbling inside a wind
instrument?) or separation either in instruments or in soundstaging. We
can discuss the details of what is wrong with offensive amps (including
the technical one of NFB) but the key is that cultured, experienced
audiophiles prefer the Quad amps because of their high livability
quotient.

Therefore, if Peter Walker wants to claim his amps all sound the same,
let him. I don't think they do. I think they sound like other Quad amps
more than like other amps of the same type or age, true, but they do
not sound precisely the same. If they did, why would the later Quad
amps be necessary?

(Commercial reasons apart, I mean. I once had a long conversation with
Ross Walker on the Quad 66 and 67 CD players, which do sound precisely
the same, as CD players are wont to. He agreed with me on the sound,
then warned me that no editor would want me to say that they sounded
the same. He was right. Now, Walker didn't actually admit that the
purpose of the Q67 was just to jazz up flagging sales--he laughed and
changed the subject--, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was one very
large reason.)

It seems to me that, in the face of the "allampssoundthesame" logic,
new amps are continually being developed because the real engineers
(not the ones we get, who require pejorative quotation marks) have
quietly given up on the mantra and are voicing amps by ear... Their
attitudes are filtering down to the "engineers", which accounts for
their schizoprhenically strained remarks, followed by confused
denials, about this amp or that amp "sounding better". I wouldn't trust
their ears, not after the years of abuse they have given them by
playing their music at levels high enough to hide the artifacts of the
very high levels of NFB required for the vanishing THD. Their sneers
that anything less than deafening volume is "easy listening" will now
rebound on them. Justice!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

If you will perform a computation of the gate drive power required for
Class D 500-Watt amplifier which can deliver a bandwidth of 100KHz at
-70dB 3rd harmonic, you will find that the Class AB MOSFET power amp is
an order of magnitude more efficient than the Class D amp.

Charles Gilbert
Consultant

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Andre Jute wrote:

-snip-

So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home.

I think this is the essence - it's simply not in the toolbox/vocabulary
of most engineers to explain what is reported with certain amplifiers.
There is simply cultural closure on the point that some amplifiers sound
different, especially when 'poor' implementation results in a 'more
accurate' listening experience.

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps. My experience is problematic in
two ways:

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others. I can't *measure* the effect. Indeed, I've never
done anything approaching a DBT largely because switching between
amplifiers is not straightforward. This is something I'm going to think
about in the not too distant future - I'd happily trade the valves for
an efficient/cheap SS if it did the job ...

2) Evidence elsewhere that suggests there is no difference in real world
sound amplification - the Quad example given by Dave Plowman being a
case in point, and considered elsewhere in your original. Simply can't
explain that ... wish I was there :-)

Rob

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps.

Sounds like your valve amps have frequency dependant phase errors between
channels. Have you actually measured this? It's quite common...

--
*The statement above is false

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com

We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window
on the concert hall.

Not a bad question.

Ironically, almost none of the audiofools who rant and rave about concert
hall realism were in the concert hall when the recording in question was
made. Most of them have never been in that particular concert hall in their
lives. Not that many of them have even heard that particular orchestra play
live.

Oh, I get it - "All concert halls sound the same" and "All orchestras sound
the same".

;-)

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally
agreed to be negative, so that we talk about the closest
approach to the concert hall, and invariably speak only
of qualified fidelity, as in "high" fidelity.

See above.

Snip the usual Luddite propaganda

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com

We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window
on the concert hall.

Not a bad question.

Ironically, almost none of the audiofools who rant and rave about concert
hall realism were in the concert hall when the recording in question was
made. Most of them have never been in that particular concert hall in
their lives. Not that many of them have even heard that particular
orchestra play live.

Oh, I get it - "All concert halls sound the same" and "All orchestras
sound the same".



Not a bad answer, shoots holes right through the ludicrous 'being there'
BS......

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Ironically, almost none of the audiofools who rant and rave about
concert hall realism were in the concert hall when the recording in
question was made. Most of them have never been in that particular
concert hall in their lives. Not that many of them have even heard that
particular orchestra play live.

Oh, I get it - "All concert halls sound the same" and "All orchestras
sound the same".

Nor will they have sat in the 'sweet spot' the recording engineer has
hopefully chosen for his mics.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps.


Sounds like your valve amps have frequency dependant phase errors between
channels. Have you actually measured this? It's quite common...


I knew I'd regret running with that analogy :-)

Yes, you could well be right - but it's something I've observed to a
greater/lesser extent on 3 valve amps now - one having recently been
serviced by one of the design/development team (I think; Chris Found)
and confirmed 'within spec'.

Interestingly, having read between the lines of CF's technical articles,
his design approach appears to have been underpinned by the notion that
good design in valve and SS yields very similar results. Some of his
designs (a valve phono amp IIRC) appear to have been motivated by an
intellectual curiosity and demand rather than any real belief that
they'd sound better than off the shelf cheapo SS. I've got a lot of time
for him - but I still think the Beard power amp I have gives better
results than SS :-)

Rob

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

-snip-

So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home.

I think this is the essence - it's simply not in the toolbox/vocabulary of
most engineers to explain what is reported with certain amplifiers. There
is simply cultural closure on the point that some amplifiers sound
different, especially when 'poor' implementation results in a 'more
accurate' listening experience.

I can't reconcile the idea that a "poor" implementation can result in a
"more accurate" listening experience. I can accept that a poor
implementation can result in a more *pleasurable* listening experience, as
it's down to the perception of the listener if it's more pleasurable or not.
I think the whole appeal of SETs is that they sound different to more
"accurate" amplifiers, and therefore to some, they become more pleasurable.

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of the
key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is the
sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with SS -
the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps. My experience is problematic in two
ways:

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others. I can't *measure* the effect. Indeed, I've never done
anything approaching a DBT largely because switching between amplifiers is
not straightforward. This is something I'm going to think about in the not
too distant future - I'd happily trade the valves for an efficient/cheap
SS if it did the job ...

2) Evidence elsewhere that suggests there is no difference in real world
sound amplification - the Quad example given by Dave Plowman being a case
in point, and considered elsewhere in your original. Simply can't explain
that ... wish I was there :-)

I think that the explanation is fairly simple:- The Quad tests were done
with a Quad II valve, and 303 and 405 SS. All three amplifiers perform to a
level that is below the threshold of audibility for frequency response
errors, noise and distortion, consequently will sound the same into the load
they were presented with at the tests (Yamaha NS1000). This will be true of
any amplifiers who's performance below the audibility threshold. I don't
think there is any mystery there.

S.


S.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Rob wrote:
I think this is the essence - it's simply not in the toolbox/vocabulary
of most engineers to explain what is reported with certain amplifiers.
There is simply cultural closure on the point that some amplifiers sound
different, especially when 'poor' implementation results in a 'more
accurate' listening experience.

I don't know what you think engineers are, but some of us have quite a good
vocabulary, most of us have ears, and some of us even enjoy listening to
music, otherwise we wouldn't be interested in sound reproduction in the
first place. Sometimes we even get to listen to live music in a concert
hall, so we are well aware of what it ought to sound like.

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps.

I see others have suggested possible causes, and they could be right, but
here's another. Could the spacious effect you describe (assuming that's
what you mean by a "sense of 3D soundstage") result from microphonic
reverberation in valve electrodes? A bench test without loudspeakers
connected wouldn't reveal this, but if the amplifier is anywhere near the
listening room when in use, its valves, or the baseplate on which they are
mounted, could be acting like microphones.

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others.

This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your
listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've moved this from the thread "Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)"
which at present centres on the different matter of the double
standards of the "engineers" who claim all amps sound the same (when
appropriately applied) or should sound the same, but who every now and
again tell us how this amp or that sounds "better". I don't see much
joy in discussing their hypocrisy with a bunch of stumblebum
soundbiters, though I delight in discussing it with more articulate
foils. This article is about how the engineers, and the "engineers" too
(because we seem to have more of them), are right at least half the
time, and possibly on both counts, so if you're squeamish, or a SETtie,
or open-minded, do yourself a favour and spare your blood pressure by
not reading further.


I'm most definitely a SeTtie (worked my way up to it) but the *absence* of
the usual crossposting encourages me to read further...



The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity
reproduction of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high
fidelity" or "hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise
description and have been a precise description since roundabout WW2.


Yes, about the time 'sound reproduction' moved out of the 'acoustic' domain
into the 'electronic'...


We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the
concert hall.


In my book, any point at which a pair of bagpipes, say, *doesn't* sound like
Laurie Anderson mimicking a pair of bagpipes. (Which she does extremely
well....)


2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert
hall, and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high"
fidelity.


I think we have. The minute you can *recognise* someone's voice over a sound
system a degree of 'fidelity' has been achieved, IMO...


The sort of "engineers" who are lost once one proceeds beyond the
easiest element of the audio chain (by a magnitude or several), the
amplifier, say they are not responsible for the failure to achieve
unqualified fidelity. Their responsibility ends when they faithfully
reproduce the master tape in the home. Their concept of faithful
reproduction of the mastertape is defined by them as noiselessness and
measured as very low harmonic distortion, which today is trivial to
achieve in silicon amps. Even distortion many tens decibels below
audibility is today trivial to achieve in push-pull tube amps, and
merely expensive rather than difficult to achieve even in single-ended
triode amps. The more reasonable of this lowest, least imaginative
level of "engineers" therefore have an irrefutable point (if one
accepts their presumptions): once success has been achieved in lowering
THD to almost vanishing point, all amplfiers, including valve
amplifiers should sound the same. The cheapest possible amplifier with
reasonable THD, capable of driving any reasonably conceivable speaker,
should therefore do everyone. By the laws of economics, eventually the
cheapest, inevitably silicon, amplifier will have a monopoly. In an
ideal world this will, on current showing, probably be a Class D
digital amp, because nothing else can be built cheaper for more power
with lower distortion. Some of the "engineers" prove that they are at
least nominally human by displaying an irrational hatred of tube amps
well beyond the rational (if one agrees with the assumptions so far)
objection to them on grounds of cost. All of this works well, but also
only works *if* the listener is willing to separate matters of culture
from technology.


Agreed.

For me, the prime requirement of a music system is that it fully engages the
emotions. I am not interested in 'sonic information flow'...



There is another view. It proceeds empirically. It might be called the
"cultural" view. To it belongs those who regularly attend concerts, who
are unimpressed by the technological fads of the anoraks, who have
cultivated and educated tastes, who have the confidence not to be
fashion victims, and the intelligence and will to stand up against what
they see as a tide of technoligical barbarism even in the arts. Though
these audiophiles may not know much about the tricky technicalities of
loudspeakers, they instinctively chooses the loudspeakers first, if not
at first certainly by the second or third hi-fi setup bought. This
group soon becomes dissatisfied with the mantra "all amplifiers sound
the same", and the excuse, "we reproduce the master tape with inaudible
noise--what more do you want?" They can hear for themselves that what
is produced is a long way from what they heard in the concert hall.
They soon discover that not all amplifiers are equal because they do
not all sound the same. On investigation they soon discover that all
these amplifiers which do not sound the same for practical purposes
measure the same. How can it be that some amplifiers cast a cold chill
over music while measuring the same as the ones which come closer to
the experience in the concert hall? It is not a big step to conclude
that the wrong thing is being measured. Next they discover that the
worst-measuring amps sound the most like the music in the concert hall,
and by then their faith in the "engineers" is totally destroyed.


In my case not *totally* destroyed but, as always, I place the opinions of
*experts* in a wider perspective. The expert view is only part of the
picture, very often I have found the remarks made by innocents to be the
most illuminating - I have got a lot of time for the kid who pointed out
that you could, in fact, clearly see The Emperor's meat and two veg....



So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home. The two that come closest, in the opinion of
cultured concert goers, are the ones considered most wretched according
to their preferred "standards" by the "engineers" in hi-fi: The Yamaha
digital signal processor with its soundshaping, and the wasteful and
expensive Class A tube amp. (The SET fashion is merely a distraction; I
haven proven again and again in blind tests that what professional
musicians prefer is Class A zero (or very low) negative feedback sound,
not necessarily single-ended or triode sound.)


I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.



There is yet another view. This is held by those who claim that they
have a right to reproduce music in their homes in a form that pleases
them best, without reference to the concert hall. They are in the vast
majority and include the growing AV movement. They are not discussed
here; thi discussion is between a couple of elites in miniscule niche
markets all sitting on a single pinhead. That is also, ironically, the
problem for the "engineers", that they have talked themselves into a
corner of lowest common denominator, cheapest possible machinery, yet
wish to present themselves as an elite who have better ears or better
taste or simply more money than anyone else. Delicious!


These interesting observations do not much cater for the 'iPod tsunami' that
is/will be shaping 'mass market music' over the next few years....


snip Quad stuff - I am the one person in this group who 'doesn't give a sod
about Quad'...


It seems to me that, in the face of the "allampssoundthesame" logic,
new amps are continually being developed because the real engineers
(not the ones we get, who require pejorative quotation marks) have
quietly given up on the mantra and are voicing amps by ear... Their
attitudes are filtering down to the "engineers", which accounts for
their schizoprhenically strained remarks, followed by confused
denials, about this amp or that amp "sounding better". I wouldn't trust
their ears, not after the years of abuse they have given them by
playing their music at levels high enough to hide the artifacts of the
very high levels of NFB required for the vanishing THD. Their sneers
that anything less than deafening volume is "easy listening" will now
rebound on them. Justice!


This is interesting - I have a little theory that 'engineers' are, if
anything, more prone than most to 'mass hysteria' and exhibit a greater
tendancy to herd together, follow 'current thinking' trends, indulge in
'group reasurances' than idiots like me who are prepared to buck the trends,
stand alone and take the crap for what we genuinely think/feel/hear. (The
clue is in the paranoid hostility in some of the remarks routinely thrown
out by a number, though not all, of them in this ng....)

I recently had a visit from 'one here', whose technical and technological
expertise/experience I suspect are *second to none* in this group, who made
the effort to re-investigate the SET phenomenon for himself.

Casually, I observed a tendancy in him toward choosing the 'safest', tidiest
and 'best presented' (lower noise, presumably less distortion &c.) sound out
of the various bits of kit we cut into the equation at various times.
Unsurprisingly, it more or less went SET to PP, valve to SS - the very
reverse of my own progress in the last couple of years and more towards what
I would describe as a 'rubbery', tidy, planar and ultimately less
interesting/engaging sound...!! :-)

Asitappens, it was a very difficult day for me, I was aware that my partner
was handling a crisis at work and was taking a number of very awkward phone
calls. (She had offered to go into the Cambridge office but I said no - she
is working over 100 hours a week atm and hasn't been here in daylight for
weeks now - unfortunately the phone calls which were to have been occasional
turned out to be pretty much continuous!)

This is a pity as it cramped my style somewhat and I *suspect* my visitor
was starting to warm (OK very slightly) to the triode/horn offerings he had
come to hear - which is no more or less than I might have expected to
happen. The 'shock' of triodes/horns is too great for some to accomodate at
a stroke and horns can/will sound strange (****e, if you like) 'til you get
used to them. It's when you *are* used to them, you can't make the
sacrifices in clarity and detail to go back to the 'softer option' of a
multiway box system!!

Interestingly, I repeated the comparisons myself the next morning and fairly
quickly evolved myself right back to Square 1 - using the same 'dodgy'
Chinese 300B SET I had started out with!! :-)

Funny ole world, innit.....???

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others.

This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your

listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made. Rod.

We've just spent 520 posts going from Ulan Batur to the Falkland
Islands for something you've said in two sentences. Thanks! Andy

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your
listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made. Rod.

We've just spent 520 posts going from Ulan Batur to the Falkland
Islands for something you've said in two sentences. Thanks! Andy

What it implies is that there are laws of physics as applied to sound
reproduction that haven't yet been discovered.

*Exactly* the premise that sells snake oil products.

--
*Women like silent men; they think they're listening.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your
listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made. Rod.

We've just spent 520 posts going from Ulan Batur to the Falkland
Islands for something you've said in two sentences. Thanks! Andy

What it implies is that there are laws of physics as applied to sound
reproduction that haven't yet been discovered.

*Exactly* the premise that sells snake oil products.

It says nothing at all about the laws of physics, except to those who *know*
nothing about the laws of physics, (though such people don't seem to be in
short supply).

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:08:20 -0800, Andre Jute burbled:

snip

The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity reproduction
of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high fidelity" or
"hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise description and have been
a precise description since roundabout WW2. We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the concert
hall.


Oh, what a question! Fidelity: 15th century. Directly or via French
Latin fidelitas "faithfulness" fides "faith". It *could* be taken to
mean "a window on the concert hall" or it could mean "true to life". The
two arn't necessarily equal.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert hall,
and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high" fidelity.


If it sounds "lifelike" to you then you have achieved "fidelity"! The term
"high fidelity" is, of course, an invention of the marketing bods to sell
more equipment and is meaningless. ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

mick wrote:

Oh, what a question! Fidelity: 15th century. Directly or via French
Latin fidelitas "faithfulness" fides "faith". It *could* be taken to
mean "a window on the concert hall" or it could mean "true to life".
The two arn't necessarily equal.

I would say that they are, but that it's rather hard to pin down what 'real'
actually is, insofar as there is variation in sound of the particular
instrument, the acoustics of the environments in which it's played, and the
position of the listener.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com

We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window
on the concert hall.

Not a bad question.

Ironically, almost none of the audiofools who rant and rave about concert
hall realism were in the concert hall when the recording in question was
made. Most of them have never been in that particular concert hall in their
lives. Not that many of them have even heard that particular orchestra play
live.

Krueger's argument above is ludicrous. I, or anyone else, or Krueger
for that matter, would be ridiculed for arguing that every amplifier
that comes off the line should be individually tested for several
different kinds of distortion, and that every owner of each unit of the
amp should have a distortion meter and use it every time before he
plays the amp. That is precisely the level of iterative test Krueger
demands above, for each and every recording, as a prerequisite to
adding to his preferred predictive measurement another means of
predicting good amplifiers. It is patently crap as logic, and would be
howled down as offensively childish in any kindergarten debate.

The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

Oh, I get it - "All concert halls sound the same"

Those quotation marks are intended to imply that I said the words. The
words are stupid. i didn't say them. The attempted implication that I
did, or would agree, is a lie.

and "All orchestras sound the same".

And again. Those quotation marks are intended to imply that I said the
words. The words are stupid. i didn't say them. The attempted
implication that I did, or would agree, is another lie.

;-)

A grimace doesn't change a dumb argument into a good one, or a foolish
lie into a truth.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally
agreed to be negative, so that we talk about the closest
approach to the concert hall, and invariably speak only
of qualified fidelity, as in "high" fidelity.

See above.

Where have you dealt with the qualifications to "fidelity", Krueger?
There is nothing of yours in this thread to justify "see above".

Furthermore, fidelity is not only about amplifiers; in fact, in parts
of my text which you snipped, I carefully make the point that the
amplifier is the least difficult part of the entire audio chain, which
is why the least competent of the "engineers", like you, are so keen to
control our perception of it. (Interestingly, when I tried to involve
the wretched Graham "Poopie" Stevenson in discussion of loudspeakers,
he instantly made a runner. Here on UKRA people will remember that when
Pinkerton ventured into expressing an opinion on electrostatic speakers
Phil Allison and I tripped him up so that in a single exchange of posts
Pinkostinko fell flat on his face.) Where, oh where, Krueger, since you
appear to believe that fidelity is a solved problem, have you dealt
with the inequalities of loudspeakers? Until you do, don't try to
patronize us with these dumb debating tricks like "see above".

Snip the usual Luddite propaganda

Really? A luddite, eh? Calling me a Luddite is a lie -- and you know it
is a lie, Krueger. I have spent a good deal of my life in or around
mechanical engineering (I even published a book about automobile design
and construction to share what I learned), computers (another book and
dozens of articles), reprographics (the science behind printing as done
with large industrial machines, more books, years of lectures and
articles), and of course electronics these last fifteen years. A
luddite is a machine-smasher. How does my known history make me a
machine-smasher? Either you don't know what the word means, in which
case you're a pretentious ignoramus, or you're deliberately lying, in
which case you're scum. Now, which is it, and which are you:
pretentious ignoramus or lying scum?

Snip the usual Luddite propaganda

Of course, this is Krueger's transparent little trick to avoid
answering the questions in my article which he snipped. I reproduce my
original unaltered and in full below, so that everyone can see that I
posed the questions already, and that Krueger has no answers for them
except abuse. The questions for which Krueger has no answer include:

1. Why don't THD and IMD measurements, or any other technical
measurements, predict which amplifiers will be preferred by cultivated
listeners?

2. Why are the engineers (not only the "engineers") so unwilling to
discuss the theory that the (probably subliminal) disturbance in the
common type of solid state amp, which causes cultivated listeners to
prefer tubes and Class A (and SET), is created by
a) crossover in Class A/B and push-pull amps
b) the adverse *balance* of higher harmonics in residual distortion
caused in silicon amps (and high-power class A/B PP tube amps) by the
high levels of negative feedback required to make them work.

So, Arny Krueger, you don't even have the excuse that I didn't state
the questions in the preferred, dull, terminology.

Below my signature is my original post in full.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review


My original post in full:

********
I've moved this from the thread "Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)"

which at present centres on the different matter of the double
standards of the "engineers" who claim all amps sound the same (when
appropriately applied) or should sound the same, but who every now and
again tell us how this amp or that sounds "better". I don't see much
joy in discussing their hypocrisy with a bunch of stumblebum
soundbiters, though I delight in discussing it with more articulate
foils. This article is about how the engineers, and the "engineers" too

(because we seem to have more of them), are right at least half the
time, and possibly on both counts, so if you're squeamish, or a SETtie,

or open-minded, do yourself a favour and spare your blood pressure by
not reading further.


The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity
reproduction of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high

fidelity" or "hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise
description and have been a precise description since roundabout WW2.
We should ask two questions:


1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the
concert hall.


2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert
hall, and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high"
fidelity.


The sort of "engineers" who are lost once one proceeds beyond the
easiest element of the audio chain (by a magnitude or several), the
amplifier, say they are not responsible for the failure to achieve
unqualified fidelity. Their responsibility ends when they faithfully
reproduce the master tape in the home. Their concept of faithful
reproduction of the mastertape is defined by them as noiselessness and
measured as very low harmonic distortion, which today is trivial to
achieve in silicon amps. Even distortion many tens decibels below
audibility is today trivial to achieve in push-pull tube amps, and
merely expensive rather than difficult to achieve even in single-ended
triode amps. The more reasonable of this lowest, least imaginative
level of "engineers" therefore have an irrefutable point (if one
accepts their presumptions): once success has been achieved in lowering

THD to almost vanishing point, all amplfiers, including valve
amplifiers should sound the same. The cheapest possible amplifier with
reasonable THD, capable of driving any reasonably conceivable speaker,
should therefore do everyone. By the laws of economics, eventually the
cheapest, inevitably silicon, amplifier will have a monopoly. In an
ideal world this will, on current showing, probably be a Class D
digital amp, because nothing else can be built cheaper for more power
with lower distortion. Some of the "engineers" prove that they are at
least nominally human by displaying an irrational hatred of tube amps
well beyond the rational (if one agrees with the assumptions so far)
objection to them on grounds of cost. All of this works well, but also
only works *if* the listener is willing to separate matters of culture
from technology.


There is another view. It proceeds empirically. It might be called the
"cultural" view. To it belongs those who regularly attend concerts, who

are unimpressed by the technological fads of the anoraks, who have
cultivated and educated tastes, who have the confidence not to be
fashion victims, and the intelligence and will to stand up against what

they see as a tide of technoligical barbarism even in the arts. Though
these audiophiles may not know much about the tricky technicalities of
loudspeakers, they instinctively chooses the loudspeakers first, if not

at first certainly by the second or third hi-fi setup bought. This
group soon becomes dissatisfied with the mantra "all amplifiers sound
the same", and the excuse, "we reproduce the master tape with inaudible

noise--what more do you want?" They can hear for themselves that what
is produced is a long way from what they heard in the concert hall.
They soon discover that not all amplifiers are equal because they do
not all sound the same. On investigation they soon discover that all
these amplifiers which do not sound the same for practical purposes
measure the same. How can it be that some amplifiers cast a cold chill
over music while measuring the same as the ones which come closer to
the experience in the concert hall? It is not a big step to conclude
that the wrong thing is being measured. Next they discover that the
worst-measuring amps sound the most like the music in the concert hall,

and by then their faith in the "engineers" is totally destroyed.


So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home. The two that come closest, in the opinion of
cultured concert goers, are the ones considered most wretched according

to their preferred "standards" by the "engineers" in hi-fi: The
Yamaha
digital signal processor with its soundshaping, and the wasteful and
expensive Class A tube amp. (The SET fashion is merely a distraction; I

haven proven again and again in blind tests that what professional
musicians prefer is Class A zero (or very low) negative feedback sound,

not necessarily single-ended or triode sound.)


There is yet another view. This is held by those who claim that they
have a right to reproduce music in their homes in a form that pleases
them best, without reference to the concert hall. They are in the vast
majority and include the growing AV movement. They are not discussed
here; thi discussion is between a couple of elites in miniscule niche
markets all sitting on a single pinhead. That is also, ironically, the
problem for the "engineers", that they have talked themselves into a
corner of lowest common denominator, cheapest possible machinery, yet
wish to present themselves as an elite who have better ears or better
taste or simply more money than anyone else. Delicious!


******


Let's flesh out this argument with a specific example:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But surely the most famous of all 'they all sound alike' tests was between
the Quad II valve, 303 and 405 SS amps? Which certainly won't sound like
an SET. And I'd guess the Krell would fit in with the Quads on that test -
which involved running those amps within spec.

Thanks, Dave. I wasn't at the original test but I have owned all these
Quad amps you mention, and currently own two of them, the Quad II tube
and 405 SS. I also have the appropriate speakers, the ESL and ESL63. In

addition I have a wide variety of other SS and tube amps. My tube amps
include single-ended triode (SET) amps from one-third watt to 75W, and
push-pull tube amps from 10W to over 100W, so I can make a direct
comparison at any power I please (though I am thoroughly contemptuous
of the "engineers" claim that you need a gazillion watts and even more
contemptuous of their claim that the only valid listening is at high
volume).


My memory of the 303 is that it definitely sounded different from the
Quad II and from the 405 as well, and that the difference was marked.
But that is memory, so let us leave the 303 there and concentrate on
amps I have sitting on the table right next to me.


I can state categorically that to me the Quad II tube and 405 MkII amps

sound different on any of the speakers available to me right now (Bang
& Olufsen S25, Quad ESL. Quad ESL63, Lowther horns of various types,
various DIY speaks with drivers from Scanspeak to guitar specialties).
It also isn't difficult to determine that the QII and 405 sound
different from several other silicon and tube amps both bought and of
my own design and construction.


In fact, the QII and the 405 are closer to each other and to my
favourites among my other amps than they are to their respective types
(SS or tube). The key is that both these amps lack that offensive
sharpness which after an hour fatigues the listener. My amps are on a
minimum of sixteen hours a day in my study or studio and often for 30
hours straight if I'm on a roll. I require civilized amps. I like
civilized music, civilized arts in general; I don't go to a concert or
to the theatre to be harassed by the egos or political whims of idiots,

so why should I permit my hi-fi to cast a chill over the pleasure of my

day?


Yet that is precisely what the SS amps, and the tube amps, of the
"engineers" do: they cast a chill which wasn't present in the concert
hall. The elements of this chill might consist of a spurious precision
(do you really want to hear the spittle burbling inside a wind
instrument?) or separation either in instruments or in soundstaging. We

can discuss the details of what is wrong with offensive amps (including

the technical one of NFB) but the key is that cultured, experienced
audiophiles prefer the Quad amps because of their high livability
quotient.


Therefore, if Peter Walker wants to claim his amps all sound the same,
let him. I don't think they do. I think they sound like other Quad amps

more than like other amps of the same type or age, true, but they do
not sound precisely the same. If they did, why would the later Quad
amps be necessary?


(Commercial reasons apart, I mean. I once had a long conversation with
Ross Walker on the Quad 66 and 67 CD players, which do sound precisely
the same, as CD players are wont to. He agreed with me on the sound,
then warned me that no editor would want me to say that they sounded
the same. He was right. Now, Walker didn't actually admit that the
purpose of the Q67 was just to jazz up flagging sales--he laughed and
changed the subject--, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was one very

large reason.)


It seems to me that, in the face of the "allampssoundthesame" logic,
new amps are continually being developed because the real engineers
(not the ones we get, who require pejorative quotation marks) have
quietly given up on the mantra and are voicing amps by ear... Their
attitudes are filtering down to the "engineers", which accounts for
their schizoprhenically strained remarks, followed by confused
denials, about this amp or that amp "sounding better". I wouldn't trust

their ears, not after the years of abuse they have given them by
playing their music at levels high enough to hide the artifacts of the
very high levels of NFB required for the vanishing THD. Their sneers
that anything less than deafening volume is "easy listening" will now
rebound on them. Justice!


Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

**********

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that
your listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the
appropriate measurements have not yet been made. Rod.

We've just spent 520 posts going from Ulan Batur to the Falkland
Islands for something you've said in two sentences. Thanks! Andy

What it implies is that there are laws of physics as applied to sound
reproduction that haven't yet been discovered.

*Exactly* the premise that sells snake oil products.

It says nothing at all about the laws of physics, except to those who
*know* nothing about the laws of physics, (though such people don't
seem to be in short supply).

Well, the comment was directed at Andy - not you. But I'll not hold my
breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what he means. Because
he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some form of 'magic'.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

mick wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:08:20 -0800, Andre Jute burbled:

snip

The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity reproduction
of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high fidelity" or
"hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise description and have been
a precise description since roundabout WW2. We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the concert
hall.


Oh, what a question! Fidelity: 15th century. Directly or via French
Latin fidelitas "faithfulness" fides "faith". It *could* be taken to
mean "a window on the concert hall" or it could mean "true to life". The
two arn't necessarily equal.

I do see them as equal, Mick. I can see where you're coming from.
Keith, for instance, says in a current post in this thread that horns
are an acquired taste, that you become more impressed with them as you
become more used to them. But, in general, what you hear in the concert
hall is true to life because it is life. It is the window on the
concert hall which lives in virtual reality, the CD, etc.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert hall,
and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high" fidelity.

If it sounds "lifelike" to you then you have achieved "fidelity"!

Set up your best amp and speakers in your listening room and settle in
with handful of discs of Bach organ music. When you finish playing
them, come tell me how good the music, the performer, the amp, the
speakers, even your arrangement of paperback books as baffles are. That
may be lifelike to you because your mind, like everyone's mind, is an
amazingly adaptive elastic band. But unqualified fidelity it will not
be. For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

I can say confidently, because it is a test i have conducted a few
time, that if I were to bring my horns to your listening room and
change nothing else, you would at the end of a week agree that my
Lowthers sound more lifelike than whatever you use. And another week
later, having borrowed a REM boombox from someone, you will agree that
its deep bass add something on organ music.

Together these cases demonstrate that fidelity is an aspiration, not an
achievement, certaintly not history.

The term
"high fidelity" is, of course, an invention of the marketing bods to sell
more equipment and is meaningless. ;-)

No, no, no. The men who coined the name were smart marketers, true, but
they were also honest Englishmen who didn't require a Trading Standards
Authority to tell them how to be honest and straightdealing. In
addition, you only have to read their books and articles and letters to
know that men like Gilbert Briggs had an abiding respect for the
language, so unlike the "engineers" on the audio conferences now that
the old radio hams have all retired hurt. If they though fidelity was
achieved, or was achievable in the short term, you may be certain they
would not have qualified it and thereby cut into sales. No, they added
the word "high" in front of "fidelity" a) to distinguish higher
fidelity from the lower fidelity which reigned before and b) as an
aspirational cry towards full, unqualified fidelity. Read Gilbert
Briggs on Peter Walker's prototype electrostatic loudspeaker and you
will see his remarks on its greater fidelity also include the
understanding that it in fact did not offer full fidelity, stunning as
it was when first heard; these remarks are right next to remarks on the
commercialized electrostat's likely marketing impact, so these old
guys never separated the two concepts, but nor did they tell any
weaseling lies.

Of course, modern marketing men may tell weaseling lies in order to
sell more soundalike amplifiers. I wouldn't know. I don't deal with
them. My gear is from the factory or the BBC or bought second-hand.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info

Andre Jute

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Keith G wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've moved this from the thread "Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)"
which at present centres on the different matter of the double
standards of the "engineers" who claim all amps sound the same (when
appropriately applied) or should sound the same, but who every now and
again tell us how this amp or that sounds "better". I don't see much
joy in discussing their hypocrisy with a bunch of stumblebum
soundbiters, though I delight in discussing it with more articulate
foils. This article is about how the engineers, and the "engineers" too
(because we seem to have more of them), are right at least half the
time, and possibly on both counts, so if you're squeamish, or a SETtie,
or open-minded, do yourself a favour and spare your blood pressure by
not reading further.

I'm most definitely a SeTtie (worked my way up to it) but the *absence* of
the usual crossposting encourages me to read further...

These are considerations of culture rather than technicalities.

The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity
reproduction of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high
fidelity" or "hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise
description and have been a precise description since roundabout WW2.

Yes, about the time 'sound reproduction' moved out of the 'acoustic' domain
into the 'electronic'...

We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the
concert hall.

In my book, any point at which a pair of bagpipes, say, *doesn't* sound like
Laurie Anderson mimicking a pair of bagpipes. (Which she does extremely
well....)

See my remarks to Mick about how your ear and brain adapts to whatever
equipment you have. See your own remarks below about your horns growing
on you. I would have no difficulty accepting that bagpipes are even
more difficult to reproduce correctly than the organ, which is the
example I used to Mick.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert
hall, and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high"
fidelity.

I think we have. The minute you can *recognise* someone's voice over a sound
system a degree of 'fidelity' has been achieved, IMO...

No. "A degree of fidelity" is not unqualified fidelity. "Recognition of
someone's voice" is high fidelity, sure. Unqualified fidelity would be
the possibility of mistaking the replay for the person in the room with
you but out of sight behind the curtain or perhaps behind you.

The sort of "engineers" who are lost once one proceeds beyond the
easiest element of the audio chain (by a magnitude or several), the
amplifier, say they are not responsible for the failure to achieve
unqualified fidelity. Their responsibility ends when they faithfully
reproduce the master tape in the home. Their concept of faithful
reproduction of the mastertape is defined by them as noiselessness and
measured as very low harmonic distortion, which today is trivial to
achieve in silicon amps. Even distortion many tens decibels below
audibility is today trivial to achieve in push-pull tube amps, and
merely expensive rather than difficult to achieve even in single-ended
triode amps. The more reasonable of this lowest, least imaginative
level of "engineers" therefore have an irrefutable point (if one
accepts their presumptions): once success has been achieved in lowering
THD to almost vanishing point, all amplfiers, including valve
amplifiers should sound the same. The cheapest possible amplifier with
reasonable THD, capable of driving any reasonably conceivable speaker,
should therefore do everyone. By the laws of economics, eventually the
cheapest, inevitably silicon, amplifier will have a monopoly. In an
ideal world this will, on current showing, probably be a Class D
digital amp, because nothing else can be built cheaper for more power
with lower distortion. Some of the "engineers" prove that they are at
least nominally human by displaying an irrational hatred of tube amps
well beyond the rational (if one agrees with the assumptions so far)
objection to them on grounds of cost. All of this works well, but also
only works *if* the listener is willing to separate matters of culture
from technology.

Agreed.

For me, the prime requirement of a music system is that it fully engages the
emotions. I am not interested in 'sonic information flow'...

Emotion is of course the difference between art and "engineering":
"Music is Art - Audio is Engineering" tells you everything you need to
know about a whole class of "engineers".
But we should be careful. Emotion isn't in fact absent from
engineering, without the pejorative quotation marks, because good
engineering is always done with passion.

There is another view. It proceeds empirically. It might be called the
"cultural" view. To it belongs those who regularly attend concerts, who
are unimpressed by the technological fads of the anoraks, who have
cultivated and educated tastes, who have the confidence not to be
fashion victims, and the intelligence and will to stand up against what
they see as a tide of technoligical barbarism even in the arts. Though
these audiophiles may not know much about the tricky technicalities of
loudspeakers, they instinctively chooses the loudspeakers first, if not
at first certainly by the second or third hi-fi setup bought. This
group soon becomes dissatisfied with the mantra "all amplifiers sound
the same", and the excuse, "we reproduce the master tape with inaudible
noise--what more do you want?" They can hear for themselves that what
is produced is a long way from what they heard in the concert hall.
They soon discover that not all amplifiers are equal because they do
not all sound the same. On investigation they soon discover that all
these amplifiers which do not sound the same for practical purposes
measure the same. How can it be that some amplifiers cast a cold chill
over music while measuring the same as the ones which come closer to
the experience in the concert hall? It is not a big step to conclude
that the wrong thing is being measured. Next they discover that the
worst-measuring amps sound the most like the music in the concert hall,
and by then their faith in the "engineers" is totally destroyed.

In my case not *totally* destroyed but, as always, I place the opinions of
*experts* in a wider perspective. The expert view is only part of the
picture, very often I have found the remarks made by innocents to be the
most illuminating - I have got a lot of time for the kid who pointed out
that you could, in fact, clearly see The Emperor's meat and two veg....

Foul-mannered little *******, even if right! It is precisely because I
know many engineers with elegant minds that I distinguish the minority
(they just seem like a majority because in audio they predominate and
are so loud and so slow-learning) of "engineers" from the real
engineers.

So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home. The two that come closest, in the opinion of
cultured concert goers, are the ones considered most wretched according
to their preferred "standards" by the "engineers" in hi-fi: The Yamaha
digital signal processor with its soundshaping, and the wasteful and
expensive Class A tube amp. (The SET fashion is merely a distraction; I
haven proven again and again in blind tests that what professional
musicians prefer is Class A zero (or very low) negative feedback sound,
not necessarily single-ended or triode sound.)


I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.

The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.

There is yet another view. This is held by those who claim that they
have a right to reproduce music in their homes in a form that pleases
them best, without reference to the concert hall. They are in the vast
majority and include the growing AV movement. They are not discussed
here; thi discussion is between a couple of elites in miniscule niche
markets all sitting on a single pinhead. That is also, ironically, the
problem for the "engineers", that they have talked themselves into a
corner of lowest common denominator, cheapest possible machinery, yet
wish to present themselves as an elite who have better ears or better
taste or simply more money than anyone else. Delicious!

These interesting observations do not much cater for the 'iPod tsunami' that
is/will be shaping 'mass market music' over the next few years....

It seems to me that the AV/iPod phenomena are contiguous and in fact
sliding over each other. Apple's iMac is already on its second
generation as an entertainment centre complete with remote control, and
the iPod is merely an adjunct to it, even if right now the tail seems
to wag the dog.

snip Quad stuff - I am the one person in this group who 'doesn't give a sod
about Quad'...

Audiophile Wealth Alert: this is a serious mistake you're committing,
Keith. You should take an interest in Quad because Quad gives you
superior sound in exchange for mere money. If you count up the value of
your hours, you hi-fi is already many times the price of a complete
top-drawer Quad setup. Also, you require a reference, and for this
second-hand Quad gear is the cheap option, and also the superior
option.

It seems to me that, in the face of the "allampssoundthesame" logic,
new amps are continually being developed because the real engineers
(not the ones we get, who require pejorative quotation marks) have
quietly given up on the mantra and are voicing amps by ear... Their
attitudes are filtering down to the "engineers", which accounts for
their schizoprhenically strained remarks, followed by confused
denials, about this amp or that amp "sounding better". I wouldn't trust
their ears, not after the years of abuse they have given them by
playing their music at levels high enough to hide the artifacts of the
very high levels of NFB required for the vanishing THD. Their sneers
that anything less than deafening volume is "easy listening" will now
rebound on them. Justice!

This is interesting - I have a little theory that 'engineers' are, if
anything, more prone than most to 'mass hysteria' and exhibit a greater
tendancy to herd together, follow 'current thinking' trends, indulge in
'group reasurances' than idiots like me who are prepared to buck the trends,
stand alone and take the crap for what we genuinely think/feel/hear. (The
clue is in the paranoid hostility in some of the remarks routinely thrown
out by a number, though not all, of them in this ng....)

I explained, probably last year sometime but several times before then
as well, that the hostility of the "engineers" arises from fear and a
consequent tendency to control freakery. They know that they will not
fit in an audiophile environment where cultural judgements have value,
perhaps even primacy.

I recently had a visit from 'one here', whose technical and technological
expertise/experience I suspect are *second to none* in this group, who made
the effort to re-investigate the SET phenomenon for himself.

Casually, I observed a tendancy in him toward choosing the 'safest', tidiest
and 'best presented' (lower noise, presumably less distortion &c.) sound out
of the various bits of kit we cut into the equation at various times.
Unsurprisingly, it more or less went SET to PP, valve to SS - the very
reverse of my own progress in the last couple of years and more towards what
I would describe as a 'rubbery', tidy, planar and ultimately less
interesting/engaging sound...!! :-)

What you're used to is what you will be comfortable with. Nothing wrong
with conservatism!

Asitappens, it was a very difficult day for me, I was aware that my partner
was handling a crisis at work and was taking a number of very awkward phone
calls. (She had offered to go into the Cambridge office but I said no - she
is working over 100 hours a week atm and hasn't been here in daylight for
weeks now - unfortunately the phone calls which were to have been occasional
turned out to be pretty much continuous!)

This is a pity as it cramped my style somewhat and I *suspect* my visitor
was starting to warm (OK very slightly) to the triode/horn offerings he had
come to hear - which is no more or less than I might have expected to
happen. The 'shock' of triodes/horns is too great for some to accomodate at
a stroke and horns can/will sound strange (****e, if you like) 'til you get
used to them. It's when you *are* used to them, you can't make the
sacrifices in clarity and detail to go back to the 'softer option' of a
multiway box system!!

Interestingly, I repeated the comparisons myself the next morning and fairly
quickly evolved myself right back to Square 1 - using the same 'dodgy'
Chinese 300B SET I had started out with!! :-)

Funny ole world, innit.....???

Pay attention now, Keith. Andy and I between us can explain it to you.
Might take us a while though. Put on some nice muzak and...

Andre Jute

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Rob
wrote:

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps.

The problem here is that there a various 'possible' explanations for what
you report. Until such time as someone does some appropriate experimental
tests to distingush between them, we can't really tell which of those
'explanations' someone might suggest may be the 'reason' for what you
report.

So, for example, on possibility is microphonics as someone else has already
suggested.

Another possibility is that the amps you prefer produce an altered
frequency response which changes the perceived direct/reverberant levels.

No doubt there would be other possibilities.


My experience is problematic in two ways:

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others. I can't *measure* the effect. Indeed, I've never
done anything approaching a DBT largely because switching between
amplifiers is not straightforward. This is something I'm going to think
about in the not too distant future - I'd happily trade the valves for
an efficient/cheap SS if it did the job ...

The distinction to make is between 'evidence' that you believe you hear
some effect, and 'evidence' that this belief is for any specific 'reason'.
What you report is evidence that you believe you hear the effect. In the
absence of any contrary evidence on that point, we can take seriously the
idea that you *do* hear what you report. However to proceed beyond that
point would require other 'evidence' of more appropriate and specific
kinds.

2) Evidence elsewhere that suggests there is no difference in real world
sound amplification - the Quad example given by Dave Plowman being a
case in point, and considered elsewhere in your original. Simply can't
explain that ... wish I was there :-)

Not quite. :-) The 'evidence' from the tests carried out and reported in
HFN/WW that you refer to was to the effect that no-one could reliably
distinguish between *the amplifiers used in the tests* under the
*conditions of the tests*. This does *not* mean that "there is no difference
in real world sound amplification" as a statement with no qualifiers. It
would be quite possible to make an amp that sounded 'different' to others
by ensuring it differed in some significant respect.So this all depends
on the case at hand.

e.g. A) You might compare an amp that was seriously current limiting in use
with one that was not.

e.g. B) You might compare two amps with wildly different frequency
responses in use.

The point of the test was explained at the time by PJW and others. Alas, it
may be that people have simply forgotten what he actually said at the time.

FWIW I will have a go at asking HFN if they will agree to a copy of the
relevant material being put on the web. Then people could refer to it, and
read it for themselves.

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:



I think that the explanation is fairly simple:- The Quad tests were
done with a Quad II valve, and 303 and 405 SS. All three amplifiers
perform to a level that is below the threshold of audibility for
frequency response errors, noise and distortion, consequently will
sound the same into the load they were presented with at the tests
(Yamaha NS1000). This will be true of any amplifiers who's performance
below the audibility threshold. I don't think there is any mystery
there.

Actually, I and some others found the results of the 'Quad' test quite
interesting at the time. This was for two reasons.

1) That although the three amps were all 'Quad' designs, their specs in
terms of things like frequency response *on load* were different. (Indeed,
in the later tests organised by Colloms this particular point came in for
some scrutiny. Yet the second set of tests also produced evidence that the
listeners could not tell one amp from another in the tests.)

2) That all along PJW was confident that people would *not* be able to tell
the difference despite (1) and the loud claims of reviewers before the
event that thy would be able to do so. People may nowdays forget that PJW
spent many a long year involved with developing the amps, and other kit,
and was also an keen amateur musician. He did listen to the equipment and
was a stern critic. Yet he held no sympathy for the claims of the reviewers
which the tests refuted.

The later 'Colloms' test was even more interesting as it used an even
wider spread of amplifier types, and more demanding conditions of test,
yet gave similar results to the 'Quad' test.

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others.

This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your
listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made.

Indeed. It is quite reasonable to take such an idea seriously. It would
only be discarded *if *

A) we found there was a body of relevant evidence that conflicted with it

or

B) it coinflicted with a theory that was well established by some other
evidence

and we decided this made the idea untenable.


So far as I know, there is no such reason to dismiss what Rod has said.

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

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:
For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

Bollox.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing
the equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of
"culture" but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

On the nail.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:28:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:
For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

Bollox.

Enormous great hairy ones, in fact.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

Rod.

Hear Hear

S.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 2006-02-13, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. ...

It was ever thus. You have to get used to attitudes and behaviours
that are often born out of a lack of understanding. It will be rather
interesting to observe the replies to your point to judge whether
Protagoras (or more accurately some of his later successors) would
approve.

... Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? ...

Indeed. Those who question scientific and engineering methods per se seem
to omit consideration of the success of such a way of thinking - as
demonstrated over the centuries.

... What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.

--
John Phillips

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 13 Feb 2006 12:20:07 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:



It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.

I was having a conversation a few months ago with a woman who had just
taken up her first post for a university, and we were talking about
her ambitions for getting a musical group together. I asked her where
in the university she was employed, and she said it was the science
and engineering department. "Oh, well, you've got your orchestra then,
no problem", I said. She told me how amazed she was to find this was
absolutely true - she had never appreciated how closely allied music
is to these disciplines. The musical talent there was far greater than
in any of the arts departments, apart from the music department
itself.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers.

Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the
paragraph you quote?

***I express no superior attitude to engineers anywhere in the text you
quote.*** No superior attitude in that text, none, zilch, nechevo,
zero. If you wish to insist, prove it by a quotation from the text
above.

What I say is that a measure held up as predictive by engineers is
thought to have failed by a large part of the consumers whose
satisfaction with hardware the predictive measure presumes to predict.
I suggest an additional measure and then compare the trust put in
professional engineers with the trust my measure will require to be put
in cultural professionals.

What you're implying in effect is that the works and opinions and
orthodoxies of engineers are beyond question by anyone else and should
be taken on faith.

That's bull****, and you know it.

The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental
irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning
by anyone else. I answer it in detail only to illuminate the incredible
stupidity of your basic assumption.

Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all?

I know some of those people and respect them, not least for their
culture. That goes without saying. What you're demanding is that the
respect earned by talented technical professionals be extended without
question to the idiots who posture on these conferences. The answer is
no, never. Let them earn their own respect. Furthermore, irrationality
in your argument won't earn you any respect either.

What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)?

Point to the text where I said that.

On the contrary, it is easy to prove that certain barbarians well known
to us, who were educated as engineers, repeatedly, daily, proudly tell
us that they consider themselves in a different class and entirely
beyond culture. How often have you seen " Music is Art - Audio is
Engineering". Before you reproach me for what I didn't say, how many
times have you reproached Pinkerton for what he says every day? Please
provide a count and point to a reference where we can audit your count.

Oh, by the way, not only didn't I say what you accuse me of saying...

*** I said exactly the opposite***

.... that I know many cultured engineers, in this same thread, in
messages which appeared on the newsgroup hours before you wrote your
cramped, ill-informed, slanted, wrongheaded reply.

What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else,

Eh? Why should I justify their decisions to you? If you wish to know,
ask them. I have. Most of those I talked to agree with what I actually
think, rather than what you are pretending to believe I think. Some of
them formed my opinions.

including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

Again, try reading what I said in the paragraph you quote. Where did I
say the "cultured" (which you somehow project as a separate class, like
intellectuals, which seems to me a highly questionable classification)
*should* design equipment?

Why, as you seem to believe, shouldn't the engineers who design such
systems, be cultured as well as technically proficiient? One would
assume that they went into that line of work not only to earn a salary
but because they were interesting in the full panoply of broadcasting
and recording, which must include cultural aspirations and interests.

Rod.

Jumped-up techies who deliberately misinterpret what I say, or put
words in my mouth that I didn't speak, **** me off. I'm quite capable
of speaking for my myself, if you don't mind.

The regular regurgitators of predigested opinions who responded to your
post (Plowman, Pearce, etc) apparently have such short attention spans
that they didn't notice that my paragraph you quote says something
entirely different from what you claim. One has to wonder whether, on
this evidence, they have the brains to discern that your claim that
engineers should be beyond question, is ludicrous even in your own
terms.

Andre Jute

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article . com, Andre Jute
wrote:

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers.

Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the
paragraph you quote?

OK, what about-

The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person,
one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture"
and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive?

Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common
prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its
owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life.

You then go on to say (among other things) -

The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental
irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning
by anyone else.

I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there
is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge
that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot
properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for.
It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording
would not be possible at all.

You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it
certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to
*anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very
point I was trying to make.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 12 Feb 2006 17:17:28 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Keith G wrote:

For me, the prime requirement of a music system is that it fully engages the
emotions. I am not interested in 'sonic information flow'...

Emotion is of course the difference between art and "engineering":

No, it isn't. One can (and should) certainly be passionate about good
engineering. Should you ever meet some real engineers discussing their
craft, this will become obvious................

"Music is Art - Audio is Engineering" tells you everything you need to
know about a whole class of "engineers".
But we should be careful. Emotion isn't in fact absent from
engineering, without the pejorative quotation marks, because good
engineering is always done with passion.

Yes, so why are you contradicting what you wrote a few lines ago? As
ever, you write reams of turgid prose which sum to zero.........

I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab a
Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it out
for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have.

I mostly use a Class A Krell amplifier - it sounds just like my
low-bias Class AB Audiolab amplifier.................

The only real advantage of Class A for the hobbyist is that it's much
easier to *design* a good Class A amplifier. In particular, linearity
at low levels is pretty much guaranteed, if the thing is remotely
decent at full power.

The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by
more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in
itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound.

That's because they are idiots who think SET amps sound good, so they
make up these fairy stories about proper amplifiers in order to
ascribe some magivcal prperty to their pathetic flea-power crap. The
term 'ultrafidelista' is of course just more of your pretentious
twaddle.

I explained, probably last year sometime but several times before then
as well, that the hostility of the "engineers" arises from fear and a
consequent tendency to control freakery. They know that they will not
fit in an audiophile environment where cultural judgements have value,
perhaps even primacy.

Actually, engineers fit very well into such an environment - they
design the equipment that audiophiles listen to. Engineers do of
course also have an unerring ability to sniff out pretentious
dilettantes like yourself......................

Pay attention now, Keith. Andy and I between us can explain it to you.
Might take us a while though. Put on some nice muzak and...

Andy would have difficulty explaining that it's Monday.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:28:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:
For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

Bollox.

Never forget that Jute is an author of fantasy fiction (as should be
obvious.............) and a sales/marketing guy, *not* someone with
any real technical knowledge.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:31:02 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing
the equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of
"culture" but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

On the nail.

And see Andre Jute's amplifier 'designs' for perfect examples!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:36:24 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On 13 Feb 2006 12:20:07 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.

I was having a conversation a few months ago with a woman who had just
taken up her first post for a university, and we were talking about
her ambitions for getting a musical group together. I asked her where
in the university she was employed, and she said it was the science
and engineering department. "Oh, well, you've got your orchestra then,
no problem", I said. She told me how amazed she was to find this was
absolutely true - she had never appreciated how closely allied music
is to these disciplines. The musical talent there was far greater than
in any of the arts departments, apart from the music department
itself.

It is a truism that musical and mathematical ability often coincide.
Indeed, the best mathematician I know, Dr Peter Billington, is also a
handy jazz/rock guitarist. He gained his PhD for his innovative work
on digital signal processing while working for Rupert Neve, whose name
may be familar to some of our gentle readers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:33:17 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article . com, Andre Jute
wrote:

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers.

Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the
paragraph you quote?

OK, what about-

The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person,
one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture"
and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive?

Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common
prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its
owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life.

You then go on to say (among other things) -

The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental
irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning
by anyone else.

I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there
is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge
that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot
properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for.
It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording
would not be possible at all.

You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it
certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to
*anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very
point I was trying to make.

Don't worry about it - Jute is just a jumped-up sales guy and hack
scribbler, with pretensions to culture and acedemia.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 13 Feb 2006 06:11:48 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers.

Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the
paragraph you quote?

Yes, and it's bull****. The essential point is that you do *not* have
to take the engineer's word for anything, you are always free to check
it for yourself. Compare and contrast with the purple prose spewed by
the culturally pretentious like yourself. BTW, there's no reason why
the person of culture should not also be a technician. Maybe you are
unfamiliar with the term Tonmeister?

***I express no superior attitude to engineers anywhere in the text you
quote.*** No superior attitude in that text, none, zilch, nechevo,
zero. If you wish to insist, prove it by a quotation from the text
above.

What I say is that a measure held up as predictive by engineers is
thought to have failed by a large part of the consumers whose
satisfaction with hardware the predictive measure presumes to predict.

Actually, that would be a *tiny* part of the consumers, and generally
found to be a technically incompetent part at that.

I suggest an additional measure and then compare the trust put in
professional engineers with the trust my measure will require to be put
in cultural professionals.

You never need to trust an engineer - unless you fly...... :-)

What you're implying in effect is that the works and opinions and
orthodoxies of engineers are beyond question by anyone else and should
be taken on faith.

That's bull****, and you know it.

Of course it is - but he didn't say it, so what's your point?

Jumped-up techies who deliberately misinterpret what I say, or put
words in my mouth that I didn't speak, **** me off. I'm quite capable
of speaking for my myself, if you don't mind.

It would be nice if you said things that made sense, however.......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Make a gainclone
 

You can then change the components and hear the differences.

:-)

Jem

ps It's no bollox, hairy or otherwise though I can't imagine what the
otherwise would be.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article . com, Andre Jute
wrote:

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers.

Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the
paragraph you quote?

OK, what about-

The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person,
one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture"
and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive?

I didn't say that. You concluded it (inference is another process) from
your own prejudice that culture is superior to technical concerns. It
is only in the light of that prejudice, common among the British, that
a distinction between techincal and cultural classes automatically
becomes "a superior attitude to engineers". I don't share your
prejudice either, so I reject this conclusion of yours as I rejected
the other unfounded conclusions. You may think what you like. You may
not put words in my mouth that I didn't speak. Nor may you assume I
share your prejudices.

If you insist on splitting hairs, add the word primarily before each of
the words technical and cultural in my original and it should be clear
even to you that I intended no value judgement by the classification.







Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common
prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its
owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life.

You then go on to say (among other things) -

The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental
irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning
by anyone else.

I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there
is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge
that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot
properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for.
It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording
would not be possible at all.

You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it
certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to
*anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very
point I was trying to make.

If the shoe fits, wear it. But I was referring to Krueger, who also in
this thread tried crudely to put words into my mouth to suit his
prejudices. You won't catch me making any ad hominem statements. I
always have a specific example in mind. Just ask and I'll tell you.

Rod.

Now, can we stop wasting time on your over-sensitive professional skin
and return to discussing the substantive matters in my original post.
Please, go ahead, have the last word. I'm out of this tiresome,
time-wasting sub-thread.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review