[germanium]

When you get the source, amp & speaker design correct you will start to hear more subtle musical cues as well as improved dynamics in that instruments & voices will sound correct even in cercumstances that may seem less than ideal. To me the most imprtant parts to get right are the source & the amps. Failure to get these correct will always lead to a disatisfied listener as there will alway be the feeling of being short changed. This is no matter how much your system costs. Speakers in spite of being on the surface the most variable componant in an audio system can still reveal whats wrong else where in the system. Once you have a source & amp that has the capability that is required the speaker can do what it does best which is to convert the electrical signal to to an acoustic signal you will find that it does not take a massively expensive speaker to arrive at a convincing sound.
 
I mod my equipment & have posted my mods here on this site & others have tried them & came back & agreed with my assesment of the mods when they did the same to thier system. I do not charge for the information & I do not offer to do or sell anything for money or trade here. In other words I have no conflict of interest here. It is my only wish that those that are capable of doing these things try them for themselves as at least in my case they have brought my system to the point that I can truely say that listening to top notch recordings gives me the sense of what is actually going on in the studio as if I were there with the live instruments & singers as the engineer intended them to be heard. You cannot discount the fact that there can be differences in amps & sources no matter how close they measure because I have made such amps & sources to sound quite different yet measure exactly the same.
 
This is what Bob Carver characterized as transfer function. Bob carver actually did develope a means of copying said tranfer function from one amp to anouther of dissimilar design. He actually did achieve that goal though the companies amps that were said to have been modiffied in that manor never quite lived up to the promise because in the production environment they did not achieve a deep enough null like he did in his amp challenges, -45-50db instead of -70db that he achieved in his amp challenges. I heard one of the production amps compared to the amp that he was supposed to have copied the transfer function from & sorry to say it was no contest which was which. The difference was in the sound of the cymbles, it was easily heard. The modified tranfer function amp sounded considerably more coarse than the actuall amp that he copied from so no cigar for him in this case.
 
I want to take time here to point out that having a good room to start with can be a great help at acieving the best sound & even though this is important I still have to say that garbage in, garbage out is still the lesson of the day even with the best speaker-room interactions. If the speaker aren't getting the best signal from the amp or source you are still way underwater in your sonic investment. If you still can't feel as if you are there on the best recordings then something is definately wrong. I have heard systems that cost over 100,000 dollars that really  did not cut it & yet I have relatively inexpensive stuff that did cut it. While room interaction was a part of the equation in the systems that didn't cut it, It to me sounded far more pervasive in the problems than just room interaction. There was a lifelessness to the music that went far beyond the room interaction.

 

[bigshot]

Nope. I haven't experienced that at all.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Nope. I haven't experienced that at all.

Maybe you need to start thinking outside the box & learn what really matters when it comes to arriving at that sound.
 
Nothing ever gets accomplished by accepting tired old arguments that on the surface may seem valid but when you dig deeper they fall flat. While I don't like all of Bob carvers products he ever did he was indeed able to do things others thought impossible because he though outside the box. A perfect example is the sunfire subwoofer. A small sub that can play very low & loud & still not draw a lot of power even though it did require a powerfull amp to accomplish. Something that would seem quite impossible going by Thiel Small calculations but is indeed very possible with Bob's calculations.
 
The world is full of possabilities that are waiting to be discovered & while much in the audio field has been discovered there is still the possability of discovering new levels of performance that can indeed be mind boggling once experienced. Retieving all the sublies in recorded music to the limits of human hearing is possible but rarely achieved even with super highend gear. I have achieved with my system what few have achieved. These differences are plainly audible to all who have heard my system. Yet my system measure Identically up to the amps in my speakers. they measure differently due to the removal of the subsonic filter which was poorly implimented to begin with, it cut in too early & even cut off some of the body of lower midrange instruments. Other than that frequency response from 200Hz up is identical. frequecy response of all amp sections is flat to D.C. with the exception of the tweeter amp which is capable of flat to D.C. response but is blocked by the crossover. It is with this system that I have achieved my best results to date & it does really give me the feeling of being there in the studio with the musicians.
 
One must be able to hear differences in different componants & figue out what causes those differences in order to correct them as I have done. For this reason you can not tell me that I can't hear differences that I have heard because not only have I heard the differences but have been able to provide corrective measures to achieve the desired result without changing measured performance such as in the case of my soundcard for example. The difference with just my last soundcad modifications are so pronounced that even my room mates which have no audiophile credentials at all & have no desire to have heard the difference & appreciated that difference as being significantly better. Yet it measues identically.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

I am all for a separate psychoacoustics forum. Not that I would spend any time there, but it would cut down the chaff here by 90% or so.
 
That would limit Sound Science to frequency response, noise, distortion and time based errors. All demonstrable and all actually about sound. The human element is really a very separate issue, despite the marathon attempts here to bond it to sound reproduction.

 
The general consensus seems to be that our visual senses are the most developed and reliable. Hence everything has a visual representation, even abstract concepts, because thats the most easily verifiable representation. Thats how we analyze signals as well, because when you convert it into visual, its definitive.
Take some time to think about this, the Gestalt theory of perception defines the principles of grouping:  Proximity, Similarity, Closure, Good Continuation, Common Fate, and Good Form.
This is what most of our scientific analysis is based on, the search for patterns, outliers, periodic waves, signals, continuity and hence signal theory.
So while we can argue about auditory perception all you want, the fact is that visual analysis has been the key to most of our science so far, and I don't see the possibility that anyone in the scientific circle will trust their ears more than their eyes.
Hence, audiophiles and audiophoolery has always been a minority, same as wine tasting (that make use of taste/smell, and I'm sure you've seen similar arguments being made there as well, the kind of glass and cork used in bottles and grape seasons and terroir what not affecting the taste of the wine.) Ultimately I feel its an argument in futility.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

Well, that is a point of view. Mine is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to hear it, it DOES make a sound. The engineer who wishes to consider sound reproduction to be an unaltered as possible reproduction of what entered the recording device or microphone has a point too. When each reproduction device can sense the psychacoustic requirements of a listener at each precise moment and modify the clean output accordingly, there will be an application beyond conjecture for your point of view re: equipment. In the meantime, I'm seeing the engineers as being the practical ones given the human listener and the electromechanical devices we have to accomplish the task.
 
Talk about YMMV! I used to laugh at the statement, "Everyone seems to like their own taste in distortion." Now I think it applies to almost everyone, myself included. When I switch from tubes to JFETs or the other way around, I need time to make the adjustment. But I end up finding each in turn to have its charms.

Everybody believes this, so it cannot be used as a demarcation between you and others.
 
That is all we can do.  The primary problems stems from the question:what are we sensitive to?  If we assume the world is monophonic, then all that matters is FR, distortion, and gross phase.
 
If we wish a synthetic image, we must consider what is required to do that.  Considering only FR, distortion, and gross phase ignores quite a bit unfortunately.
 
Quote:

 
-That metallurgy does not affect the speed at which signals pass through cables (white papers from boutique cable mfrs claim it does eg with cryo, OCC but the consensus here is that it has more to do with construction and dielectric.)  
-Is it impossible for metallurgy to affect reactive impedance or any other consequential metric of cable performance? (boutique cable mfrs often quote different measurements for different metallurgy - is this just slight of hand ie are they changing wire gauge etc?)
-That inductance and capacitance cannot affect signal phase as the cable is in minimum phase.
-That skin effect has inconsequential effect on signal phase and frequency response (I'm not sure what order of magnitude we are taking about in real world applications)

The atomic structure of a metal will not alter the speed of signal propagation.  Cryo treating also does not. 
 
Changing the permeability of the conductor can increase the inductance, which will slow the signal down..  The velocity is proportional to 1/sqr (LC) or 1/sqr(mu*epsilon).  If the conductor is kept non magnetic, there will be no real change.  It is possible to lower the inductance at frequency by increasing the conductivity, but the maximum effect is 15 nH per foot, and that doesn't happen within the audio band.
 
 
L and C will always affect the signal phase if they change.  The concern is level of effect.  If the change is below human thresholds, 2 to 5 uSec, there will be no audibility issue.
 
Skin effect doesn't change phase and frequency response in the audio band, contrary to that '85 "blurb".  Proximity effect can change L and C for wide conductors and foil inductors, but I've seen no hard data to show intrusion into human audibility domains.
 
jnjn

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
..For this reason you can not tell me that I can't hear differences that I have heard because not only have I heard the differences but have been able to provide corrective measures to achieve the desired result without changing measured performance such as in the case of my soundcard for example. The difference with just my last soundcad modifications are so pronounced that even my room mates which have no audiophile credentials at all & have no desire to have heard the difference & appreciated that difference as being significantly better. Yet it measues identically.

 
You have of course verified this with careful level matched blind tests where human bias, priming (Clever Hans) and expectation do not come into play ?.  I also assume that your room mates where both wholly unaware of your making any modifications and all spontaneously noticed the differences without your suggesting that they hear what your mods had done ? The audio world is full of dog and pony show "demonstrations" of superior technology where what we want to hear we hear. In any case simply playing music a bit louder fools us in to thinking it is somehow better. I have a switch box which allows me to switch between my CD players analog output and the CD player digital output decoded by my Entech 203.2, the Entech always sounds better, it is however about 1.7db louder and when I record the outputs and level match I can no longer tell them apart.
 
I am reminded of John Atkinson's diatribe against DBT where he recalled how much he wanted a Tube amp but was unable to tell it apart from a cheaper SS amp, he bought the SS amp but hated it so bought the Tube amp and was happy. Atkinson erroneously uses this to prove that DBT is invalid whereas all it proves is that he wanted a tube amp based on certain preconceptions and was not happy until his irrational desires were met even in the face of hard evidence.
 
A funnier one was where two audio pals were comparing amps. Audio pal A brings along his beloved and expensive boutique amp, they both listen to it and they love it. Then Audio Pal B puts his cheap Onkyo amp into the picture. Audio pal A hates it and describes in great detail its many and various flaws compared to his amp. Audio Pal B goes up to the Onkyo and turns it off, the music keep playing. The Audiophile amp had never been disconnected from the speakers, Audio Pal A expected to hear crap and so he heard crap even from his beloved amp !

 

[bigshot]

I was actually responding to the previous poster, but I guess it fits your comment too if you wish.

The reason I know that amps and CD players and SACD players sound the same is because I've compared them. Every piece of equipment that comes by me gets a thorough comparison. I have yet to find an amp or CD player that doesn't sound like every other amp or CD player. From Macintosh to Marantz, Coby to Sanyo... All identical.

If I hadn't done all those comparisons, horse sense would have led me to believe that expensive things probably sound better. But my own informal testing showed me that that wasn't the case.

By the way, I have the top of the line Sunfire sub in my system. It's great.

 

[ktm]

Quote:

.  
I am reminded of John Atkinson's diatribe against DBT where he recalled how much he wanted a Tube amp but was unable to tell it apart from a cheaper SS amp, he bought the SS amp but hated it so bought the Tube amp and was happy. Atkinson erroneously uses this to prove that DBT is invalid whereas all it proves is that he wanted a tube amp based on certain preconceptions and was not happy until his irrational desires were met even in the face of hard evidence.

Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
Very different technologies. And different sounds.
Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
Very different technologies. And different sounds.
Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!

 
This is straight from the mouth of John Atkinson who tested the amps blind when he was a young graduate engineer back in the late 70s
 
Quote:

Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms (footnote 2). Convinced by these results of the validity in the Consumer Reports philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career!......
 
However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was the same as it ever had been, the magic was gone. Listening to records began to play a smaller role in my life—until I replaced the 405 with an M&A tube amplifier two years later.
 

 
my memory was not quite perfect 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktm /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Any one who has ever played guitar knows that if you drive a SS amp into distortion, everyone will cover their ears.
If you drive your tube amp into distortion, you're a guitar hero. Note: Hendrix fan in the house!

 
That's why we don't drive our amps into distortion. We don't want to distort the signal, we want to reproduce it accurately.

 

[ktm]

Quote:

 
That's why we don't drive our amps into distortion. We don't want to distort the signal, we want to reproduce it accurately.

I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
how that difference manifests itself.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
how that difference manifests itself.

Just because they sound differently when overdriven, which btw is not the normal operating range for an power/headphone SS amp (which is what I've been trying to communicate above), doesn't mean they sound differently when they are not. That's plain old logic in action.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Tube amp and SS sounding the same? That's a stretch.
Very different technologies. And different sounds.

 
I agree, I ain't buyin' it.
Most tube amps sound different than SS amps.
Tube amps have higher damping factor and more distortion.

 

[El_Doug]

That's actually not as true as you may think.  For instance, if you run a SS amp as a single transistor into an output transformer (single ended), you will get those same even-order harmonics that we get with 300b SET amps.  At the same time, with an OTL push-pull tube amp, those even-order harmonics disappear, and you get a similar distortion profile to most modern SS amps. 
 
Topology plays a far bigger role than whether you use tubes or transistors
 
Quote:

I think that one went over your head. Tubes and SS amps are different animals This was just an example of
how that difference manifests itself.

 

[maverickronin]

Tubes can sound just like transistors but it takes a lot more work to make them sound like that so with the exception of 'stat amps which can make use of tube's high voltages most manufacturers don't bother making $3K tube amps that sound exactly like $300 transistor amps.