New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blue Pill or Red Pill? - Page 4

post #46 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
High end gear heads rarely know much about music.

See ya
Steve
Just saw "Return To Forever" last nite at the Fox!!!

DO NOT MISS THIS IF IT COMES NEAR YOU
post #47 of 63
Is Chick Corea with the group again? Are they recording new material, or just touring the old stuff?

See ya
Steve
post #48 of 63
As long as we're talking about spoons:
LL
post #49 of 63
The article is flawed because the author thinks that solid state can replicate tubes.
post #50 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spareribs View Post
The article is flawed because the author thinks that solid state can replicate tubes.
It can be done but you must really screw up the design
post #51 of 63

The Carver Shootout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Know Talent View Post
It can be done but you must really screw up the design
That's funny.

On a serious note, Bob Carver did it...

"Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines took him up on the challenge.

First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).

In 1985, Stereophile magazine challenged Bob to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named in the challenge but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000.

Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a “black box” and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Bob, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room. He marketed “t” versions of his amplifiers incorporating the sound of the Mark Levinson and Conrad Johnson designs which caused him some criticism by those who failed to understand the true nature of the challenge — that it was possible to duplicate an audio amplifier's sound in two completely dissimilar designs. In light of this criticism, Bob Carver went on to design the Silver Seven, the most expensive and esoteric conventional amplifier up to that time and duplicated its sound in his M 4.0t and later models which sold for some 1/40th the price (around $600-$1500)."


pair of Mark Levinson ML-2, 25 watts per channel mono-blocks


Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven stereo amplifier $3,295 (not the Premier Five)
(Premier 5 mono-block: $12,000)


Carver M1.5t stereo amplifier
~$1,000

Wikipedia --> Bob Carver
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spareribs View Post
The article is flawed because the author thinks that solid state can replicate tubes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Know Talent View Post
It can be done but you must really screw up the design
Actually Bob Carver did this several years back....

In 1985, Stereophile magazine challenged Bob (Carver) to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named in the challenge but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000.

Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a “black box” and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Bob, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room

-----------------------------------
EDIT: Ooooops - too slow

-----------------------------------
post #53 of 63
I like tube design stuff a lot . . . specifically because it ADDS color to sound. Oh yeah, I meant pre-amps for recording though. Don't know why I'd want a tube amp to play finished music back at me.
post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminus Est 23 View Post
I like tube design stuff a lot . . . specifically because it ADDS color to sound. Oh yeah, I meant pre-amps for recording though. Don't know why I'd want a tube amp to play finished music back at me.
Not sure which recording studios use tube equipment. I tried a Valve-Hearts disc, but don't note a huge difference. Not to say that there isn't a difference--maybe it's warmer. The music itself wasn't my style either. I'm more of a cold modernism kind of guy.

post #55 of 63
Pretty much all of that stuff in the pdf is crap....that's not backed up what so ever. For starters, I can hear down to 16hz and max out at 20khz in a hearing test, I don't attest to have golden ears, but I know that most people don't hear that low (genetics perhaps?). Cable geometry is also a big thing...but this wasn't discussed in the article, it just says "It's all crap", when indeed it is not according to electrical laws. Vacuum tubes are great because you can ROLL THEM, and because some people prefer the added warmth/distortion/whatever you would like to call it. Analog vs digital!? wtf? analog is organic, digital is...well, digital. He stated the obvious, but backed it by biased remarks- yes you will have pops if your equipment is filthy.

I think that the meaning of life is the over-all pursuit of happiness, and if spending thousands of dollars on a single cable makes you happy, then why not? Does it make a difference? If you're happy about the cable, and your system is already top-notch, then yes...you can only feel better during your listening session.
post #56 of 63
Thread Starter 
bring me "any" analog source and we'll patch it into my system, run blind tests against my D5SE and my DV-47A and see what happens...
post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightbitpotion View Post
Analog vs digital!? wtf? analog is organic, digital is...well, digital.
Can you explain what you mean by organic ?

This does not seem to make any sense in the context of electronic recording and playback.
post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightbitpotion View Post
I think that the meaning of life is the over-all pursuit of happiness, and if spending thousands of dollars on a single cable makes you happy, then why not? Does it make a difference? If you're happy about the cable, and your system is already top-notch, then yes...you can only feel better during your listening session.
That's perfectly fine as long as your happiness doesn't make you go onto internet chat boards to recommend that other people spend thousands of dollars on a single cable to achieve specific improvements in sound that you didn't get out of it yourself.

See ya
Steve
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
Can you explain what you mean by organic ? This does not seem to make any sense in the context of electronic recording and playback.
Noise in analog formats is generally more organic than in digital formats (hisses and crackles as opposed to instantaneous tics and digital gurgling).

See ya
Steve
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Noise in analog formats is generally more organic than in digital formats (hisses and crackles as opposed to instantaneous tics and digital gurgling).

See ya
Steve
What do you mean by organic ?

The post before mine was not talking about noise but an "organic" property of analog sound recording/playback , this still makes no sense to me...

What does organic mean here and how is it an appropriate word for electronic recording/playback
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: