jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
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.

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.



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.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern
gear, and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption
and improved reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

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

So they're not into high fidelity ;-)


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.
The latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of the
poor quality parts used these days.
Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

Jaap

New equipment can cost more than used, although some of the prices
being paid for old technologies like SETs and paper-coned full-range
drivers are a lot higher than you can buy perfectly decent modern
stuff for. However, if you compare what an amplifier costs now and
what a similar spec cost in 1960 or 1970, it's an awful lot cheaper now.

Many of us, me included, like vintage gear, in the same way I like
vintage cars, fountain pens and mechanical watches, but I don't expect
(or get) the same standard of performance as I do from my modern stuff.

S.


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table radios

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.

Jaap

Hi-Fi may be a marketing phrase, but the concept behind it is that of
High Fidelity, that is, to quote that well known phrase, "the closest
approach to the original sound". That is what the pursuit of Hi-Fi has
been since music could be reproduced.

However, as even the very best Hi-Fi cannot recreate the full sound
field of a live performance (although some come close), I do use the
'scope and the THD meter and the FFT etc. to make objective measurements
that can be recorded and reproduced. Ears are just not accurate enough,
nor is audio memory sufficiently stable to be a valid evaluation tool.

Since the mid '80s, equipment performance has been of such a high order
that it is already well beyond our ability to appreciate it. Once you
get to below 0.1% distortion at all levels and frequencies, +-1dB
20-20kHz, 80dB S/N ratio, etc.etc. any further improvements in
performance will not result in better perceived audio quality. That is
why all modern amplifiers sound the same, all competently designed CD
players sound the same etc. In fact, I am of the opinion that the reason
for the popularity of SET amplifiers, horn loudspeakers and a return to
vinyl is in an attempt to get a sound that's different from the norm.
Different is not better, and in any objective measure, SETs/horn/vinyl
systems are worse, very much worse. That some people prefer them is
their business, but High Fidelity it isn't.

If you truly want music with as little added or taken away, then the
best of modern CDs with modern SS electronics and modern multiway or
Electrostatic loudspeakers will give you exactly that. You may not like
it, but that *is* High Fidelity to the limits of what can be achieved
with stereo

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

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.

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).


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

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...

Jaap

Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
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.

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.



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.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern
gear, and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption
and improved reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

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

So they're not into high fidelity ;-)


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.
The latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of
the poor quality parts used these days.
Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

Jaap

New equipment can cost more than used, although some of the prices
being paid for old technologies like SETs and paper-coned full-range
drivers are a lot higher than you can buy perfectly decent modern
stuff for. However, if you compare what an amplifier costs now and
what a similar spec cost in 1960 or 1970, it's an awful lot cheaper now.

Many of us, me included, like vintage gear, in the same way I like
vintage cars, fountain pens and mechanical watches, but I don't
expect (or get) the same standard of performance as I do from my
modern stuff.

S.


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table
radios

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.

Jaap

Hi-Fi may be a marketing phrase, but the concept behind it is that of
High Fidelity, that is, to quote that well known phrase, "the closest
approach to the original sound". That is what the pursuit of Hi-Fi has
been since music could be reproduced.

However, as even the very best Hi-Fi cannot recreate the full sound
field of a live performance (although some come close), I do use the
'scope and the THD meter and the FFT etc. to make objective measurements
that can be recorded and reproduced. Ears are just not accurate enough,
nor is audio memory sufficiently stable to be a valid evaluation tool.

Since the mid '80s, equipment performance has been of such a high order
that it is already well beyond our ability to appreciate it. Once you
get to below 0.1% distortion at all levels and frequencies, +-1dB
20-20kHz, 80dB S/N ratio, etc.etc. any further improvements in
performance will not result in better perceived audio quality. That is
why all modern amplifiers sound the same, all competently designed CD
players sound the same etc. In fact, I am of the opinion that the reason
for the popularity of SET amplifiers, horn loudspeakers and a return to
vinyl is in an attempt to get a sound that's different from the norm.
Different is not better, and in any objective measure, SETs/horn/vinyl
systems are worse, very much worse. That some people prefer them is
their business, but High Fidelity it isn't.

If you truly want music with as little added or taken away, then the
best of modern CDs with modern SS electronics and modern multiway or
Electrostatic loudspeakers will give you exactly that. You may not like
it, but that *is* High Fidelity to the limits of what can be achieved
with stereo

S.



Well, amice, did you ever come across someone who told you otherwise?
What you are stating here is bogus.

Music exists to be enjoyed, not to be measured with primitive devices
like scopes and FFTs if you don't have a clue what to look for. It's all
about the hearing, the most advanced apparatus humans posses.

You are stranded in 'HiFi' which has nothing to do with music. Hifi is
good enough for television sets, portable radios and cars.


Jaap

On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:36:02 +0200, 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.


Well, watts do matter. If you want to hear a symphony orchestra at
realistic level, they really matter. Unless you enjoy the sound of
clipping, of course. That, I'm afraid is what the 5 watt valve amp
people have to put up with.


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.


No, you have fallen foul of the "capacitor sound" myth here. There is
no such thing. Mid-priced Hi Fi amplifiers right now are essentially
faultless in their reproduction. You can't reduce fuzz by changing
capacitors because there is no fuzz.

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 doesn't have harsh highs - it has accurate highs. There are
plenty of people around who compared the accurate highs on CDs with
the muted highs from previous technologies and found the comparison
unfavourable, of course. As for unnatural dynamics - they are nothing
to do with CDs. You can't blame the medium for what producers do with
it. And of course the CD is fully capable of vastly better dynamics
than any previously available medium. Vinyl, of course, has always
suffered reduced dynamics because it is mechanically severely limited.


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

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...


Why should I mean that? This newsgroup is uk.rec.audio. That means it
concerns itself with the techniques and methods of sound reproduction.
Whether that is high or low fidelity is up to the originator of each
thread. In general of course, it won't concern itself with what colour
the latest offering from Panasonic is.

d

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

jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
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.

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.



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.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern
gear, and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption
and improved reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

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

So they're not into high fidelity ;-)


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.
The latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of
the poor quality parts used these days.
Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

Jaap

New equipment can cost more than used, although some of the prices
being paid for old technologies like SETs and paper-coned full-range
drivers are a lot higher than you can buy perfectly decent modern
stuff for. However, if you compare what an amplifier costs now and
what a similar spec cost in 1960 or 1970, it's an awful lot cheaper
now.

Many of us, me included, like vintage gear, in the same way I like
vintage cars, fountain pens and mechanical watches, but I don't
expect (or get) the same standard of performance as I do from my
modern stuff.

S.


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table
radios

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.

Jaap

Hi-Fi may be a marketing phrase, but the concept behind it is that of
High Fidelity, that is, to quote that well known phrase, "the closest
approach to the original sound". That is what the pursuit of Hi-Fi
has been since music could be reproduced.

However, as even the very best Hi-Fi cannot recreate the full sound
field of a live performance (although some come close), I do use the
'scope and the THD meter and the FFT etc. to make objective
measurements that can be recorded and reproduced. Ears are just not
accurate enough, nor is audio memory sufficiently stable to be a valid
evaluation tool.

Since the mid '80s, equipment performance has been of such a high
order that it is already well beyond our ability to appreciate it.
Once you get to below 0.1% distortion at all levels and frequencies,
+-1dB 20-20kHz, 80dB S/N ratio, etc.etc. any further improvements in
performance will not result in better perceived audio quality. That is
why all modern amplifiers sound the same, all competently designed CD
players sound the same etc. In fact, I am of the opinion that the
reason for the popularity of SET amplifiers, horn loudspeakers and a
return to vinyl is in an attempt to get a sound that's different from
the norm. Different is not better, and in any objective measure,
SETs/horn/vinyl systems are worse, very much worse. That some people
prefer them is their business, but High Fidelity it isn't.

If you truly want music with as little added or taken away, then the
best of modern CDs with modern SS electronics and modern multiway or
Electrostatic loudspeakers will give you exactly that. You may not
like it, but that *is* High Fidelity to the limits of what can be
achieved with stereo

S.



Well, amice, did you ever come across someone who told you otherwise?
What you are stating here is bogus.

Music exists to be enjoyed, not to be measured with primitive devices
like scopes and FFTs if you don't have a clue what to look for. It's all
about the hearing, the most advanced apparatus humans posses.

You are stranded in 'HiFi' which has nothing to do with music. Hifi is
good enough for television sets, portable radios and cars.


Jaap
Fine, and I sincerely hope you and your system will be very happy
together. Music is to be enjoyed, but equipment needs to be measured if
it is to be understood.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

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.




--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

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.

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

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?

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.

Jaap

Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:36:02 +0200, 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.


Well, watts do matter. If you want to hear a symphony orchestra at
realistic level, they really matter. Unless you enjoy the sound of
clipping, of course. That, I'm afraid is what the 5 watt valve amp
people have to put up with.

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.


No, you have fallen foul of the "capacitor sound" myth here. There is
no such thing. Mid-priced Hi Fi amplifiers right now are essentially
faultless in their reproduction. You can't reduce fuzz by changing
capacitors because there is no fuzz.

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 doesn't have harsh highs - it has accurate highs. There are
plenty of people around who compared the accurate highs on CDs with
the muted highs from previous technologies and found the comparison
unfavourable, of course. As for unnatural dynamics - they are nothing
to do with CDs. You can't blame the medium for what producers do with
it. And of course the CD is fully capable of vastly better dynamics
than any previously available medium. Vinyl, of course, has always
suffered reduced dynamics because it is mechanically severely limited.

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

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...


Why should I mean that? This newsgroup is uk.rec.audio. That means it
concerns itself with the techniques and methods of sound reproduction.
Whether that is high or low fidelity is up to the originator of each
thread. In general of course, it won't concern itself with what colour
the latest offering from Panasonic is.

d


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.

"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?

Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
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.

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.



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.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern
gear, and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption
and improved reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

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

So they're not into high fidelity ;-)


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.
The latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of
the poor quality parts used these days.
Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

Jaap

New equipment can cost more than used, although some of the prices
being paid for old technologies like SETs and paper-coned
full-range drivers are a lot higher than you can buy perfectly
decent modern stuff for. However, if you compare what an amplifier
costs now and what a similar spec cost in 1960 or 1970, it's an
awful lot cheaper now.

Many of us, me included, like vintage gear, in the same way I like
vintage cars, fountain pens and mechanical watches, but I don't
expect (or get) the same standard of performance as I do from my
modern stuff.

S.


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table
radios

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.

Jaap

Hi-Fi may be a marketing phrase, but the concept behind it is that of
High Fidelity, that is, to quote that well known phrase, "the closest
approach to the original sound". That is what the pursuit of Hi-Fi
has been since music could be reproduced.

However, as even the very best Hi-Fi cannot recreate the full sound
field of a live performance (although some come close), I do use the
'scope and the THD meter and the FFT etc. to make objective
measurements that can be recorded and reproduced. Ears are just not
accurate enough, nor is audio memory sufficiently stable to be a
valid evaluation tool.

Since the mid '80s, equipment performance has been of such a high
order that it is already well beyond our ability to appreciate it.
Once you get to below 0.1% distortion at all levels and frequencies,
+-1dB 20-20kHz, 80dB S/N ratio, etc.etc. any further improvements in
performance will not result in better perceived audio quality. That
is why all modern amplifiers sound the same, all competently designed
CD players sound the same etc. In fact, I am of the opinion that the
reason for the popularity of SET amplifiers, horn loudspeakers and a
return to vinyl is in an attempt to get a sound that's different from
the norm. Different is not better, and in any objective measure,
SETs/horn/vinyl systems are worse, very much worse. That some people
prefer them is their business, but High Fidelity it isn't.

If you truly want music with as little added or taken away, then the
best of modern CDs with modern SS electronics and modern multiway or
Electrostatic loudspeakers will give you exactly that. You may not
like it, but that *is* High Fidelity to the limits of what can be
achieved with stereo

S.



Well, amice, did you ever come across someone who told you otherwise?
What you are stating here is bogus.

Music exists to be enjoyed, not to be measured with primitive devices
like scopes and FFTs if you don't have a clue what to look for. It's
all about the hearing, the most advanced apparatus humans posses.

You are stranded in 'HiFi' which has nothing to do with music. Hifi is
good enough for television sets, portable radios and cars.


Jaap
Fine, and I sincerely hope you and your system will be very happy
together. Music is to be enjoyed, but equipment needs to be measured if
it is to be understood.

S.


I fully agree equipment needs to be measured. Foolish thing is, we
(scientifically) have an incomplete picture of audio. It seems there's
no need for so we settle for 'as good as it gets' with digital junk.
Differences that can't be measured do not exist because they can't be
measured. That's why so many 'voodoo' accessories are for sale.