jameshuntington said:

A pure audiophile is interested in caps, plugs or whatever to get better sound.

Click to expand...

 
Mostly whatever.
 
People who aren't so pure want to actually understand how sound reproduction works, how human hearing works, and how to apply those principles to stereo equipment in a practical manner.

jameshuntington said:

just because you don't/can't hear it doesn't make it imaginary.

Click to expand...

 
If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter.

bigshot said:

If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

I'm meaning you as in the person I'm quoting. A lot of people can't tell that Bose are junk, that's not my problem.

castleofargh said:

but that's not even the problem, the signal gets ringing or overshoot or takes too much time to reach a voltage or to go back to zero, in probably several parts of a complex circuitry. a good deal of those circuits are in fact implemented just to counter those unwanted artifacts(filters, feedback ...). it's a very unrealistic idea to think that the signal is what it is and that each component with slight imperfection will add an irremediable defect to the signal. nothing could ever be done in electronic if it really worked like that. that's an oversimplified wrong idea of a circuit. having one component misbehaving isn't like going to mp3. a deviation doesn't automatically mean a signal loss.

say we need one special type of component to build a particular system. that component always overshoot the desired voltage on first impulse and even the best component does it a little. if we have a way to supress that overshooting without bringing something worse whatever the value, why should we pay for the expensive slightly better one? I think the MIT videos on feedback show that brilliantly. take something super bad, add stuff, end up with a close to perfect sine wave. job done done!
I would even bet that often times, changing a system for a component with better specs could actually have a negative effect on the output signal. because the design and component values were taking the bad component response into account and compensating for it adequately. so when the error is out, or smaller, the correction components might bring it back in the opposite direction.

anyway, as always, if the output is transparent, it's transparent.  I believe that tubes are useless relics of the past in audio, but when I see a tube amp with great specs, it's still a great amp. how a good result is obtained doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

If your product uses parts that sound perfect at purchase, then break or change over time, then whatever I guess. Or if you string along a bunch of junk to counteract junk and perfect sound comes out, done?
There's a reason people like older products and technologies, because they've stood the test of time. And a reason why designs are copied, because they work great. Just because this is a science thread doesn't mean we have to debate everything, some ideas can and are accepted. Among many people the analogue surviver is making complete sense. You may think tubes are relics and maybe in certain instances they are. There's a difference between signal transfer and signal amplification, and then putting rubber to road. As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.

jameshuntington said:

As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.

Click to expand...

 
Then why are you touting audiophile methodology (e.g. haphazard, selective, or none) over engineering methodology (e.g. rigorous and heavily tested).

liamstrain said:

Then why are you touting audiophile methodology (e.g. haphazard, selective, or none) over engineering methodology (e.g. rigorous and heavily tested).

Click to expand...

I believe time tells, to some extent. When companies use cheap parts, I notice because I keep my stuff. A well made product gets better with time.
As for testing new technology, I support it. But when companies try to fool people with look-alike parts and etc, that is where we should focus.

jameshuntington said:

I believe time tells, to some extent. When companies use cheap parts, I notice because I keep my stuff. A well made product gets better with time.
As for testing new technology, I support it. But when companies try to fool people with look-alike parts and etc, that is where we should focus.

Click to expand...

 
I agree that good parts will be inclined to improve build quality and in turn reliability of a product, which should make it objectively more desirable when compared to another product with worse quality of the same price. What I don't agree with is that high quality parts will improve sound in some inexplicable way just because they are "high quality'. Let's be honest, that's silly.

jameshuntington said:

A lot of people can't tell that Bose are junk, that's not my problem.

Click to expand...

 
I think that's more an issue of not caring than not being able to tell.

The parts used in digital audio equipment are often standardized and manufactured in bulk quantities. The fact that they are inexpensive doesn't mean that they are inferior in any way. It just means that they are used in enough different things that they can be made cheaply in quantity. You'll probably find a lot of the same parts in midrange stereo components as in high end.

jameshuntington said:

If your product uses parts that sound perfect at purchase, then break or change over time, then whatever I guess. Or if you string along a bunch of junk to counteract junk and perfect sound comes out, done?
There's a reason people like older products and technologies, because they've stood the test of time. And a reason why designs are copied, because they work great. Just because this is a science thread doesn't mean we have to debate everything, some ideas can and are accepted. Among many people the analogue surviver is making complete sense. You may think tubes are relics and maybe in certain instances they are. There's a difference between signal transfer and signal amplification, and then putting rubber to road. As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.

Click to expand...

if a part as a mechanical play, then obviously we want one that will resist the physical forces so that it will work longer. if the current ends up warming the component up to +90°c (194°f) then sure I don't want something that will melt or break rapidly. paying for that is a good reason.
but any dac or amp do stuff to a signal that we would never approve of if they were explained step by step. that's what I'm trying to explain. one hazardous behavior somewhere can become a tool somewhere else. most problems can be solved later on and a solve problem isn't a problem, just like a distorting capacitor isn't a problem is the output signal ends up without those distortions or if the distortions are super super low. else they simply wouldn't use the lousy part, or they would and the output signal would be crap and would show on measurements.
you can blame someone for giving you crappy sound, but you can't blame someone for giving you the same output signal with cheaper parts at a cheaper price. I don't see this as a problem unless we want to limit elite sound only rich elite people for business reasons. 
sometimes there is no perfect product vs bad product(and sometimes there clearly is), they just have different specs and the good engineer will use what he can deal with.
 
 
analog surviver is usually the kind of person I despise for trying to force false ideas onto others, but actually I happen to like him because even though a few of his hypothesis are dead wrong, he has real logic after that and tries seriously to explain rationally his ideas. that's much more enjoyable to debate with him than the usual "I know because I heard it and you're all wrong, science is wrong, I do what I want".
so while I strongly disagree with most of what he says ^_^, I do respect his efforts to get to the end of problems.
 
 
if a part breaks I'm too much of a soldering noob to even try changing it, so of course we don't have the same concerns here and I get your point.

Can someone please explain something to me about power.

If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp?

If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.

Assuming the ratings are equally accurate, the 200 watt amplifier will be able to deliver more current and provide 3 db of additional gain.

mezzo said:

Can someone please explain something to me about power.

If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp?

If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.

Click to expand...

for the same sound same volume, and all things considered, they will deliver the same thing. the ideal situation being that the only limiting factor would be the speaker, so the amp will deliver what the speaker accepts to let go through in both current and voltage. just like a wall charger will deliver just what your phone or laptop requires and nothing more in current.
if you're in situation where the amp set the voltage or current limit, then your speaker is simply not driven optimally and then the 200w amp might be better.

castleofargh said:

if a part as a mechanical play, then obviously we want one that will resist the physical forces so that it will work longer. if the current ends up warming the component up to +90°c (194°f) then sure I don't want something that will melt or break rapidly. paying for that is a good reason.
but any dac or amp do stuff to a signal that we would never approve of if they were explained step by step. that's what I'm trying to explain. one hazardous behavior somewhere can become a tool somewhere else. most problems can be solved later on and a solve problem isn't a problem, just like a distorting capacitor isn't a problem is the output signal ends up without those distortions or if the distortions are super super low. else they simply wouldn't use the lousy part, or they would and the output signal would be crap and would show on measurements.
you can blame someone for giving you crappy sound, but you can't blame someone for giving you the same output signal with cheaper parts at a cheaper price. I don't see this as a problem unless we want to limit elite sound only rich elite people for business reasons. 
sometimes there is no perfect product vs bad product(and sometimes there clearly is), they just have different specs and the good engineer will use what he can deal with.


analog surviver is usually the kind of person I despise for trying to force false ideas onto others, but actually I happen to like him because even though a few of his hypothesis are dead wrong, he has real logic after that and tries seriously to explain rationally his ideas. that's much more enjoyable to debate with him than the usual "I know because I heard it and you're all wrong, science is wrong, I do what I want".
so while I strongly disagree with most of what he says ^_^, I do respect his efforts to get to the end of problems.


if a part breaks I'm too much of a soldering noob to even try changing it, so of course we don't have the same concerns here and I get your point.

Click to expand...

I don't see Any forcing false ideas. From my perspective I agree with him because it seems like he has some I the same basic knowledge that I have , but is much more knowledgable. I say basic knowledge, because I actually consider most of his opinion to be undoubtably true basic knowledge. Some of his opinions I have no experience, so I try to understand him.

IMO I see just as much myth in cheaper audio as I see in expensive gear. And by myth it's a lot about worth. I personally like my older gear, that's less to go wrong. No remote or computer needed to increase a audio signal.

mezzo said:

Can someone please explain something to me about power.

If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp?

If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.

Click to expand...

You've got to read the spec carefully when you're buying an amp. Some amp especially home theaters and AVR specification are tricky. For example, the amp might specify 200W when it is driving a single channel. This does not mean you're getting 200W per channel. The actual power you're getting wil be significantly less. In some cases, the specification may say 200W at 10%THD. Again the actual power will also be less. So the key is compare the specification apple to apple. Some 100W amp may deliver more "usable power"/juice than some loosely spec 200W amp.