On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:04:17 +0200, jaap wrote:

Don, I agree on most points but one (besides from reproduction levels,
which are measured in Bells and not Watts): your inability to
distinguish audible capacitor coloration. You hide behind your test
equipment, not knowing exactly what to look for. Is it the ESR, the
inductance, dielectric absorption? Do the test with open mind, you may
find yourself puzzled.

Who cares what you use to measure audio reproduction levels? You need
Watts to produce them.

As for capacitor colouration, *nobody* has to my knowledge ever
demonstrated an ability to hear it. Many have made the claim, and a
few of them have allowed themselves to be subject to a test - all have
failed. I suspect you could easily add yourself to this number.

I don't hide behind equipment. This is a claim you are making to Serge
too, and I have to say it is rather rude. I use equipment, I have
designed equipment and I have measured the characteristics of many,
many capacitors. I have also worked in recording studios (where I was
taught vinyl cutting by an expert). My mind is open - if I ever hear
what I consider to be an unexplained difference I will immediately
challenge myself to identify it beyond doubt. I have never done so
yet. It is your mind that appears to be the closed one in this debate
and this leads you make assertions that fly in the face of reason. So
you need to be self-critical. If you find yourself believing something
that doesn't follow logic, don't just assume that you are right and
logic is wrong. Assume that you have got it wrong until such a point
that you can demonstrate beyond doubt that you have it right.

One thing, of course. You must make the test blind. Your brain plays
the cruelest tricks on you when you are aware of what you are
listening to.

You do know that James Randi has a million dollars awaiting anybody
who can repeatably hear the difference between cables?

Go for it - you can buy us all a drink with your winnings.

d

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

Keith G schreef:
"jaap" wrote


that's OK, I'll snip all the **** off....


As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more watts to be
reproduced correctly, this is again a (1970) sales story. Right now I
am listening through a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more than enough
decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra, no
problem.
The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made serious progress
since 1960.


I run two parallel systems: 100 SS Watts into 82 (84?) dB speakers and 8
or 9 valve Watts into high 90s speaker - the valve setup blows the other
one away on the *loudness* front!!

As was stated elsewhere, speakers have fallen victim to 'lifestyle'
(WAF?) restrictions of late and almost all 'consumer speakers' need a
sub to be any good, but I suspect sensitive speakers are back on the up
again...??

Gemme Vivace anyone? Zu Druids?



Finally, we're talking AUDIO here. Away with prejustice and flattened
paths the masses march across. Listen and compare, trust your ears as
you won't receive better test equipment in your life.

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:22:57 +0200, jaap wrote:

Finally, we're talking AUDIO here. Away with prejustice and flattened
paths the masses march across. Listen and compare, trust your ears as
you won't receive better test equipment in your life.

Jaap, you are starting to sound a little silly - certainly very
ignorant of the state of audio test equipment. It isn't as if it is
even a close call. Audio measurements are many thousands of times more
sensitive and discriminating than the ear's ability to hear. I urge
you to do a little more research and reading before you post anything
further on this subject.

d

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

Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:04:17 +0200, jaap wrote:

Don, I agree on most points but one (besides from reproduction levels,
which are measured in Bells and not Watts): your inability to
distinguish audible capacitor coloration. You hide behind your test
equipment, not knowing exactly what to look for. Is it the ESR, the
inductance, dielectric absorption? Do the test with open mind, you may
find yourself puzzled.

Who cares what you use to measure audio reproduction levels? You need
Watts to produce them.

As for capacitor colouration, *nobody* has to my knowledge ever
demonstrated an ability to hear it. Many have made the claim, and a
few of them have allowed themselves to be subject to a test - all have
failed. I suspect you could easily add yourself to this number.

I don't hide behind equipment. This is a claim you are making to Serge
too, and I have to say it is rather rude. I use equipment, I have
designed equipment and I have measured the characteristics of many,
many capacitors. I have also worked in recording studios (where I was
taught vinyl cutting by an expert). My mind is open - if I ever hear
what I consider to be an unexplained difference I will immediately
challenge myself to identify it beyond doubt. I have never done so
yet. It is your mind that appears to be the closed one in this debate
and this leads you make assertions that fly in the face of reason. So
you need to be self-critical. If you find yourself believing something
that doesn't follow logic, don't just assume that you are right and
logic is wrong. Assume that you have got it wrong until such a point
that you can demonstrate beyond doubt that you have it right.

One thing, of course. You must make the test blind. Your brain plays
the cruelest tricks on you when you are aware of what you are
listening to.

You do know that James Randi has a million dollars awaiting anybody
who can repeatably hear the difference between cables?

Go for it - you can buy us all a drink with your winnings.

d


Don don't be offended, I won't either. The logic behind colorations
associated with cables and capacitors are explicable by electrical
properties. I can hear the difference between five or six cables, even
more capacitors (I have hundreds to play with and I do!) and so can you
(I presume). Never heard from James Randi but when we meet I'll buy you
a drink, as many as you need to forget your equipment and hard obtained
knowledge. Then we have a (blind) test listening to beautiful music.

Best regards from the home of the worlds largest audio equipment
producing company ever.

"jaap" wrote in message
ll.nl...
honestguvnor schreef:
On May 11, 10:07 pm, max graff wrote:
I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining
that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical.

This is not a wise statement. I am sure you will find quite a few
readers prepared to bet you cannot hear the difference between a
reasonable class A amplifier and a reasonable class AB driving a
reasonable loudspeaker.

I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D
amplification.

This is a good question (assuming "digital" amplifier of whatever
class and audibly neutral under normal conditions) . I do not know the
answer and given the absence of any reliable consumer audio
publications and the absence of reasonable specifications from the
manufacturers it is not obvious to me where to look for an answer.

Obviously one could perform experiments oneself but that would imply a
pretty awesome loss of basic technical knowledge about the performance
of consumer audio in these broadband www days.

Anyone?


Just an opinion: history shows that despite 'progress' amplification
quality diminishes every decade. Don't believe you can't do without this
new class. A good system dating from 1960 or 1970 or 1980 will beat any
plastic rubbish -whatever class- dating from 2007.

**What a load of bull****. Find yourself a system costing $X.00 in 1970.
Find yourself a similarly rated system, costing $X.00 in 1=2007 (allowing
for inflation) and listen. You will likely be surprised at the improvements.


The other day I demonstrated a nice turntable setup to someone who had
listened solely to digital audio. She was surprised by the reality coming
from old gear, despite S/N THD and whatever cyphers modern stuff tries to
sell to the public.

**So? All I see is that modern equipment is much cheaper than in the old
days. Here's my example:

I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally cost
US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back then. For
it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing full
complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other nifty
stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and when I
purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it sounded than
many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or even more power. Just
for yuks, I recently compared it to a more modern Marantz amplifier (cost
around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison. The modern amp was somewhat better
sounding. And, allowing for inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less
expensive. Don't even get me started on loudspeakers. The technology for
designing speakers has improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote:

It's a public secret there's only a small market for better
sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want
to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality,
especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers
are facing.
I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could
you
elaborate?

d

Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means
as much as being common knowledge to most people.
No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled.

d

Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends.
Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face
plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity
of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not
how it is reproduced.
OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year
for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the
music so much. See my point?


Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear
amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality?

I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or
how large the stack.


Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years
manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction.
Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy
the moving pictures.


I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system
supplied with a TV.

In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her
hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the
impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset


Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers
don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi?

Jaap

Nobody has produced anything better for many years.

You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a
midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would
sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other
hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they
don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when
they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think
a small gain in quality is worth a large amount.

Absolutely *NOT*. Changing capacitors won't make one jot of
difference. Just measure it and you'll see. IF you would rather
believe your ears than objective measurements, then I have a Bridge I
can sell you.

Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had
been understood and addressed.

Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and
unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here).



Digital has no "sound". CD is a transparent carrier, in that whatever
goes in comes out, to the limits of the 16 bit 44.1 system, which
comfortably exceeds the human ability to hear. You may not like what
is being done with CDs (I also hate today's Mastering, it's all bout
loudness, not quality) but that's nothing to do with the carrier,
which is transparent to well past the limits of human hearing.

S.





Sorry, I do not agree with you. Sound is affected by everything it comes
in contact with. The surrounding, electronic parts, the hairs in your
ears, noise, air temperature and more. Talk with a musician and stop
believing technicians have a complete picture of nature.

I agree measurements are necessary, but please come down from your high
horse telling science knows everything. Was it you who said all (good)
amplifiers and players sound the same? Not true.

Jaap, this is where we have to disagree. All good amplifiers *will*
sound the same into sensible loads. I accept that 1ohm Scintillas will
cause some amplifiers to sound different, but sensible loads on modern
sensible amplifiers will sound the same. They can't not sound the same
when their specifications are both comfortably below hearing thresholds.

Please do a simple test exchanging capacitors in the PS of your audio
equipment or in your speaker crossovers. It might or might not be
measurable but one can hear definitely the change of coloration. Unless
you don't listen to music of course

Again, if the measurements don't show any change in performance, there
can't be any change in the sound. Sound doesn't change for "magic", if
there is a change in sound, then there is a measurable change in audio
parameters.

One of the problems with Digital audio is that only part of the actual
information is recorded. For most people this 'sound' is good enough (as
most consumers don't want to pay for higher quality). Have you ever
compared a recording on a Telefunken M10 to your favorite CD or DVD?

It is not a "problem" with digital audio as *all* the information is
recorded to the limits of 16 or 24 bit resolution, and to a little less
than half the sample rate frequency. Even with 16/44.1 systems, the
accuracy is so very much better than any analogue machine could manage,
that the suggestion that an M10 is better than a CD is just plain
foolish. You may prefer the sound of the M10, but every objective test
would show the CD to be better. *Much* more information is recorded on
CD than on an analogue machine which is limited at best to a S/N ratio
of some 60dB if distortion is to be kept low. Bass woodles on analogue
tape prevents the bass end from recording flat, and speed variations
(W&F) are many orders of magnitude worse than CD, although still below
audibility.

I think you should consider carefully your position. It is perfectly OK
for you to claim that you prefer the sound of your system to a modern
digital one, but to claim that it is better, is just foolish when all
the measurements are against you.

S.



Jaap


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally
cost US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back
then. For it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing
full complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other
nifty stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and
when I purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it
sounded than many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or
even more power. Just for yuks, I recently compared it to a more
modern Marantz amplifier (cost around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison.
The modern amp was somewhat better sounding. And, allowing for
inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less expensive. Don't even get me
started on loudspeakers. The technology for designing speakers has
improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years.



S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a sound....???

Speaker improvements? Try getting hold of a pair of cheap, 30 year old
Tannoys/Rogers/Quads/KEFs, just for starters....

In article l, jaap
wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:



Just an opinion: history shows that despite 'progress' amplification
quality diminishes every decade. Don't believe you can't do without
this new class. A good system dating from 1960 or 1970 or 1980 will
beat any plastic rubbish -whatever class- dating from 2007.

Interesting opinion, but what is it based on? Modern systems are
louder, distort less, have wider bandwidth and less noise than 1960s
or 1970s systems, but haven't improved to any great extent since the
'80s. However, they certainly haven't diminished.

Well, I'd be happy to believe that amplifiers have 'deminished' over the
decades. I am still enjoying using the amps I designs 20+ years ago. So it
would be smug to assume that newer ones were all poorer. However I suspect
the 'opinion' remains an 'opinion' for the simple reason that it isn't a
'fact'. ;-


Hi Serge,

My opinion is based on human hearing and not on the momentary
technological approach from a-musical tecchies.

Strangely, I also based my opinions on this on 'human hearing'. Just that
my experiences clearly differ from yours, I suppose. :-)


I got to this opinion speaking with fellow musiclovers, who share a
passion for the best obtainable. Most got tube amps under 5W per
channel, some built their own, often accomplished by single driver
speakers.

Ah, so 'the best' means soft clipping to alter the sounds in ways you
prefer. I see. Do you also regard high output impedance as useful to alter
the frequency response in ways you like? :-)

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

In article l, jaap
wrote:


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick?

Was it? Can you give the evidence you have for that?

I have assumed that - in English - it meant 'High Fidelity'. With an
amplifier this means that for audio signals the output is an accurately
scaled version of the input. Hence the term 'amplifier'. :-)

I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table radios


Your evidence that Philips invented the term for this ad is?...

What's your standard of performance? Reading a 100Mhz scope? My standard
is about music with as little as possible interference, whatever
technology, cosmetics, cyphers, brand or anything.

Mine also. Hence the above definitions of 'High Fidelity' and 'amplifier'.

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

In article l, jaap
wrote:
Don Pearce schreef:


Nobody has produced anything better for many years.

You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a
midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would
sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio.

Would it? When in the past I tried changing types of caps, no-one I tried
the results on could tell any difference - if they had no idea I'd change
the caps. :-)

Nor have I seen any well conducted listening tests showing any such audible
differences. Many assertions and claims of belief, but no reliable
evidence anyone else could assess.


Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had
been understood and addressed.

Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and
unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here).

I wouldn't have liked that either. Forrtunately it doesn't seem to arise
simply as a result of a system being 'digital'. Although there are bad
examples of everything.


Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to
sound reproduction.

Not in my house. :-)



But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We
are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to
understand in great detail what the true situation is.

d


Hope not to be blunt, but do you mean this NG is more about lifestyle
than audio? In that case the name should be changed...


You seem to be having Dutch-English translation problems if you think that
is what he wrote. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Jaap

--
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