Advice: Amp building
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:10:13 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

If what you fancy is a cold glass of beer, a cup of tea isn't better.
But this is not a reasonable analogy because our appreciation of both
tea and beer is entirely aesthetic and there is no possible objective
measure of goodness that can be applied to both of them as a
comparison.

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. There are
objective measures of how closely the result may approach that
original. Totally different, in other words.

It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

Don Pearce wrote:

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. ...

What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the emotional
response you want from what you hear?


It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.

Why is it unhelpful?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:10:13 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

If what you fancy is a cold glass of beer, a cup of tea isn't better.
But this is not a reasonable analogy because our appreciation of both
tea and beer is entirely aesthetic and there is no possible objective
measure of goodness that can be applied to both of them as a
comparison.

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. There are
objective measures of how closely the result may approach that
original. Totally different, in other words.


Wrong Don. (At least in my case!) I have almost no originals to compare -
when I play music it is the original. Fidelity to me is being able to tell a
violin from a viola, or a clart from an oboe or tenor saxophone, it's got
bugger all to do with how the music might have sounded in some venue
somewhere, half a century ago!

I mean, what seat in the house would it have to have been to be the *genuine
original*...???

(Not to mention that I have got as many as half a dozen different versions
of many of the works in my LP collection.....)

I chase a satisfying sound, I don't care about *fidelity* per se.


It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.


I'm not interested in establishing a paradigm. I believe the phrase 'won't
suit everybody' is the one I have used regularly here over the last few
years...??

Lemme say it for the (hopefully) last time - if someone can get their
'musical rocks' off with an inexpensive SS amp playing CDs on a supermarket
DVDP into a pair of cheap multiway speakers, then good luck to 'em! I wish I
could have done the same - would have saved me a ton of money and a lot of
time and hassle!!

;-)

Advice: Amp building
 

"Don Pearce" wrote:


In terms of things like amplifiers, they have just one job which is to
make the signal bigger - nothing else. An amplifier that can do that
is objectively better than one which can't. If you care to express it
in terms of preferring the sound of distortion rather than it being
better, there will be no problem. If you want to reduce it to a matter
of linguistic skills, then you must agree with that. There are
amplifiers that are better when they distort, guitarists use them and
they are generally called fuzz boxes.


It helps, I think, to remember that the amplifier is only one part in the
'music replay' chain and how an amp works in a system is more important to
me than how it may measure in isolation.....



Examples:


snipt


If what you fancy is a cold glass of beer, a cup of tea isn't better.
But this is not a reasonable analogy because our appreciation of both
tea and beer is entirely aesthetic and there is no possible objective
measure of goodness that can be applied to both of them as a
comparison.


Sure there is. They are both drinks taken when one is thirsty on a hot day -
how they both work, being quite different, is possibly a good comparison to
the way different amps work to do the same job for different people....??

All of that does not detract from the fact that a person can claim the sound
from his system (amp, sources, material &c.) is better without having to
prove it in demonstrable, measurable ways. If that person genuinely prefers
that sound and is not simply *kidding himself* then he is not wrong, he is
expressing his *preference*. (Some people simply do not get thrown into a
tizzy with *distortion* figures! ;-)

OK. What do we try next - different flavour ice cream??

:-)

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:53:45 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. ...

What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the emotional
response you want from what you hear?


If you believe that the musicians, singers etc have a clue what they
are doing, and publish a product containing the emotion they want to
impart, then a system that delivers that without overlaying a load of
other stuff is a very useful aspiration.


It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.

Why is it unhelpful?

The word idiosyncratic would be the important one.

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. ...

What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the emotional
response you want from what you hear?


It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.

Why is it unhelpful?



Because it jars all those people on the cheap SS kit (playing the CDs
mentioned elsewhere) when they *know*, deep down, they ain't getting the
Full Monty from their audio kit, I suspect!! ;-)

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:58:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:10:13 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

If what you fancy is a cold glass of beer, a cup of tea isn't better.
But this is not a reasonable analogy because our appreciation of both
tea and beer is entirely aesthetic and there is no possible objective
measure of goodness that can be applied to both of them as a
comparison.

And sound from an audio system differs from this... how?

In that there is an original to which it may aspire. There are
objective measures of how closely the result may approach that
original. Totally different, in other words.


Wrong Don. (At least in my case!) I have almost no originals to compare -
when I play music it is the original. Fidelity to me is being able to tell a
violin from a viola, or a clart from an oboe or tenor saxophone, it's got
bugger all to do with how the music might have sounded in some venue
somewhere, half a century ago!

When I talk about the original, I'm talking about what the artists
produced and believed (hoped) you would be listening to.

I mean, what seat in the house would it have to have been to be the *genuine
original*...???

Depends how much money you are prepared to spend on a ticket. WHen
somebody cuts a record, it is to be hoped that they put you in the
*best* seat.

(Not to mention that I have got as many as half a dozen different versions
of many of the works in my LP collection.....)

I chase a satisfying sound, I don't care about *fidelity* per se.

I know that - that is why I made my comment about your approach being
idiosyncratic and thus probably not a useful paradigm.


It is perfectly possible, as Keith has ably demonstrated, to put
together a system with totally different aspirations, but that is a
very idiosyncratic point of view and hence in the long run probably
unhelpful as a paradigm.


I'm not interested in establishing a paradigm. I believe the phrase 'won't
suit everybody' is the one I have used regularly here over the last few
years...??

Good - I'll buy that. Unfortunately paradigms don't get to choose
themselves.

Lemme say it for the (hopefully) last time - if someone can get their
'musical rocks' off with an inexpensive SS amp playing CDs on a supermarket
DVDP into a pair of cheap multiway speakers, then good luck to 'em! I wish I
could have done the same - would have saved me a ton of money and a lot of
time and hassle!!

;-)



Waddya mean hassle? You'd have been bored silly. Within a couple of
days you'd have been in the shed bolting a steam engine into your lawn
mower. :-)

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

Don Pearce wrote:

What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the
emotional response you want from what you hear?

If you believe that the musicians, singers etc have a clue what they
are doing, and publish a product containing the emotion they want to
impart, then a system that delivers that without overlaying a load of
other stuff is a very useful aspiration.

Who cares about what the musicians want to impart?


Why is it unhelpful?

The word idiosyncratic would be the important one.

You haven't answered the question, which was about your comment on an
idiosyncratic point of view: why is it unhelpful as a paradigm?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:58:24 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote:


In terms of things like amplifiers, they have just one job which is to
make the signal bigger - nothing else. An amplifier that can do that
is objectively better than one which can't. If you care to express it
in terms of preferring the sound of distortion rather than it being
better, there will be no problem. If you want to reduce it to a matter
of linguistic skills, then you must agree with that. There are
amplifiers that are better when they distort, guitarists use them and
they are generally called fuzz boxes.


It helps, I think, to remember that the amplifier is only one part in the
'music replay' chain and how an amp works in a system is more important to
me than how it may measure in isolation.....

Exactly the same for me. I want it to work as near perfectly as
possible. I want it to make no sonic contribution whatever to what I'm
listening to. I want to hear the music undiluted. I know it is an old
argument, and you've heard it before, but it is a really valid one and
none the worse for being old.



Examples:


snipt


If what you fancy is a cold glass of beer, a cup of tea isn't better.
But this is not a reasonable analogy because our appreciation of both
tea and beer is entirely aesthetic and there is no possible objective
measure of goodness that can be applied to both of them as a
comparison.


Sure there is. They are both drinks taken when one is thirsty on a hot day -
how they both work, being quite different, is possibly a good comparison to
the way different amps work to do the same job for different people....??


Not really. Amps only work one way - they make signals bigger. Good
ones do that cleanly, rubbish ones add crap.

All of that does not detract from the fact that a person can claim the sound
from his system (amp, sources, material &c.) is better without having to
prove it in demonstrable, measurable ways. If that person genuinely prefers
that sound and is not simply *kidding himself* then he is not wrong, he is
expressing his *preference*. (Some people simply do not get thrown into a
tizzy with *distortion* figures! ;-)


It all revolves around the use of English, when it comes down to it
really, doesn't it? For me the word better in the context of a
reproduction system has an objective measure to do with comparing what
comes out with what goes in. For you it is just another word for
preferable. We ain't gonna agree here, are we?

OK. What do we try next - different flavour ice cream??

:-)


Well, OK. Provided they are from Marine Ices opposite the Roundhouse.
They've been there about fifty years, make their own and they are
incomparable. Sorry, that means we can't compare them, I think ;-)

d

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

Advice: Amp building
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:10:54 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

What does aspiration to an original have to do with getting the
emotional response you want from what you hear?

If you believe that the musicians, singers etc have a clue what they
are doing, and publish a product containing the emotion they want to
impart, then a system that delivers that without overlaying a load of
other stuff is a very useful aspiration.

Who cares about what the musicians want to impart?

Ever been to a concert?


Why is it unhelpful?

The word idiosyncratic would be the important one.

You haven't answered the question, which was about your comment on an
idiosyncratic point of view: why is it unhelpful as a paradigm?

The root of the word is "Idios" which means the self. It means that
the view would be applicable that one person alone. WHy are you not
getting this?

d

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