[Citan]

Quote:

 
Oh my. Did you even see the post a few above yours?

Which one did you find especially important/relevant?

 

[tzjin]

Post #380 by Purrin. I believe he brings up a few solid points, ones that I can relate to.

 

[Citan]

Quote:

 
I think it is incredibly arrogant of any of us on Head Fi to even infer that we know more about audio design than real world designers like Nelson Pass and his colleagues. 
 
 
For a start, not every power amplifier will drive every load properly, I could continue, but who's listening?

Well of course, we aren't talking about pairing an amplifier with a load it can't properly drive. 

 

[rhythmdevils]

I like how Citan conveniently misses Purrin's well thought out, well written post.  Classic.  He's not interested in learning anything, when confronted with actual information and knowledge, he just ignores it because he'd rather live in well constructed ignorance. 
 
The funny thing is that the views of Citan are just as nieve as the "subjectivists" he so boldly attacks.  Has he ever even heard much gear?  Yes, many people hear things to prove that their expensive purchases were worth it.  And then on the opposite side fo the fence we have people like Citan who refuse to hear things because he wants to prove that his 02 amp is the best thing evarrr because he's broke and can't afford anything more, or because he wants to believe in his rigid fundamentalist explanation of the world. 
 
The basic process here is the same.  Both parties jump into extremism to hold onto ignorant views because of some vested interest they have and emotional attachments.  And this is also the reason the arguments go on forever, because both the objectivists and the subjectivists are equally beyond reason or logic or real understanding.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Why do you believe amps should sound different? It's an amplifier, the only thing it's meant to do is take an input signal and, wait for it,.......amplify the signal for the output stage.  If it is changing the signal, it is by definition low fidelity.

Citan I consider changes in sound staging, imaging, clarity, warmth etc to be changes in sound. I experience this all the time on different amps. Not all amps sound the same IMO and I don't consider these differences to be a flaw but rather an advantage depending on ones application. If you don't hear a difference or rather can't hear a difference then more power to you and your wallet. I wish I could make a pair of ibuds sound like the SR009s or an O2 sound like a Zana Deux in my mind as well .

 

[jcx]

Nelson does have long experience in designing audio equipment, commercial success
 
and has in these later years turned towards "minimalist" designs - but if you actually read his Pass Labs Zen Amp and other articles you will find he continually compares versions of his designs on nonlinear distortion measures - usually reducing nonlinear distortion as the designs "advance"
 
he has awsome device knowledge and practical audio experience
 
however he has a Physics degree and is not a deeply competent signals/feedback educated EE as his wrong headed article on feedback proves - when pressed had to admit he exaggerated to support a preconceived "anti-feedback" position pandering to the target audience

 

[Citan]

Quote:

Citan I consider changes in sound staging, imaging, clarity, warmth etc to be changes in sound. I experience this all the time on different amps. Not all amps sound the same IMO and I don't consider these differences to be a flaw but rather an advantage depending on ones application. If you don't hear a difference or rather can't hear a difference then more power to you and your wallet. I wish I could make a pair of ibuds sound like the SR009s or an O2 sound like a Zana Deux in my mind as well .

As has been stated many time before, you can equalize to compensate for nearly any inadequacy you find, there is no good reason to use a piece of colored gear to do so.  Have you done anything as simple as level matching when making a comparison between two components?  If you haven't you should give it a try, then have someone switch between the two while you try to determine which is which, I think you would learn a lot.  Transducers do make a difference, but again you make a mistake when you believe an O2 should "sound" like anything, it shouldn't.  It's an amplifier.

 

[Magick Man]

Why do you believe amps should sound different? It's an amplifier, the only thing it's meant to do is take an input signal and, wait for it,.......amplify the signal for the output stage.  If it is changing the signal, it is by definition low fidelity.

I thought SS amps sounded the same, unless there was something wrong with one, until I got better transducers and sharpened my listening skills.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

As has been stated many time before, you can equalize to compensate for nearly any inadequacy you find, there is no good reason to use a piece of colored gear to do so.  Have you done anything as simple as level matching when making a comparison between two components?  If you haven't you should give it a try, then have someone switch between the two while you try to determine which is which, I think you would learn a lot.  Transducers do make a difference, but again you make a mistake when you believe an O2 should "sound" like anything, it shouldn't.  It's an amplifier.

 
I think you would learn a lot if you tried building your own amplifier starting from simple designs. Nothing beats hands on experience. Even building some very simple amplifiers and seeing how changes in design and parts affect the sound of the amplifier - in sounding like anything or nothing. Nothing will preclude you from doing any blind testing either.
 
Here is a great resource for you to get started and it shouldn't cost you that much money: http://tangentsoft.net/audio/
 
You will realize that even seemingly innocuous things such as putting capacitors in the signal path (to block DC) or using opamps with different specs affects the sound. You will realize the the design O2 is really not that special. The location of the volume pot is interesting, but that's about it, and even then, it's got some downsides, and it's already been done before. A well designed semi-portable CMOY with a good power supply circuit could actually be a better amp (more transparent) than the O2 for easier to drive headphones.
 
Until then, in the absence of any meaningful data, test results, or personal experience, you just have a hypothesis no better than any of the more seemingly outlandish subjective claims. Sorry, but that's just how the scientific method works. Observe, measure, postulate, attempt to predict / correlate, observe, measure, measure more, measure more, gain confidence -or- throw out BS, adjust, measure, observe, measure more, etc.

 

[Citan]

What scientific discipline is your degree in purrin?

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

What scientific discipline is your degree in purrin?

 
I'm a practicing electrical engineer, and know better than to dismiss someone based on his/her academic degree. Why don't you ask instead about what experience does someone have? Or try to make sense out of what someone says?

 

[Citan]

Quote:

 
I'm a practicing electrical engineer, and know better than to dismiss someone based on his/her academic degree. Why don't you ask instead about what experience does someone have? Or try to make sense out of what someone says?

Thanks for the reply but the question was not directed to you.

 

[purrin]

Fair question.
 
Computer science with focus on numerical analysis and data visualization. I started with EECS, but I got sick (too dumb) of non-linear differential equations and dynamics, which I much preferred writing computer simulations to solve rather than doing the actual equations by hand.
 
How old are you? 19? As Ultrabike hinted at, you probably don't realize that most people get actual jobs which only remotely have anything to do with their degree, especially 10-25+ years after graduation. Some of the smartest science guys I know have degrees in literature, philosophy, economics, etc.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

I like how Citan conveniently misses Purrin's well thought out, well written post.

 
In all honesty, I'm not sure of how well thought out it is.  It misses the crux of the argument, and that is many of us believe that the measurements established today are more than enough, and that there are none of these mysterious yet to be discovered measurements that offer any relevancy to the subjectivity position.
 
While listening tests can be valuable, some of us would argue it's not for the same reason.  For example if one misses an established test it could lead to a design problem (see Schiit Asgard DC offset issue).  That's about it, a secondary check to find major flaws before release, not subtle nuances.
 
Furthermore, he makes rather bad assumptions about people and assumes a deficiency in the immediate knowledge of workings is proof that he's right when that is clearly not established.  I'm guessing he does this as a attempt to appear as an authority on the matter, but when we get down to it he's just another spectator like ourselves.
 
Also, you're doing the same thing.  For example:
 
 
 

The funny thing is that the views of Citan are just as nieve as the "subjectivists" he so boldly attacks.  Has he ever even heard much gear?
 
I have for example, all the way to the Beta 22.  I could not hear a difference between it and the O2.  It's not up to us to prove the null hypothesis though.  You have no clue how much gear someone has had experience with, but want to try an establish a negative tone ahead of time to try and make your point stand.  It's a poor practice.
 
 Yes, many people hear things to prove that their expensive purchases were worth it.
 
So you admit that he's right at times.
 
  And then on the opposite side fo the fence we have people like Citan who refuse to hear things because he wants to prove that his 02 amp is the best thing evarrr because he's broke and can't afford anything more
 
And here you're making assumptions about him again.
 
If you were talking about me for example I've had a $1600 DAC and could do the same for an amp, but in reality I couldn't hear a difference.  The burden of proof does not fall on the null hypothesis.  You have no clue what someone's experience actually entails.
 
or because he wants to believe in his rigid fundamentalist explanation of the world. 
 
Or he's actually correct, but that would defeat your ability to belittle his position on the matter trying to make it seem as irrelevant as possible.

 
While his posts come off as rude and with assumptions themselves, it's not an excuse to try and do the same thing.
 
I think this thread could be really summed up as this though:
 
If you really want the objectivist mindset at its core, it's probably going to align with what the majority of EE's say about amplifier design and transparency.
 
The subjectivst mindset seems to be based on "what if" and anecdotes.  Until they can bring that in-line with the objectivist testing principles then many core objectivists will scoff and that's the end of it.
 
The only test that the subjectivists can really do that's somewhat easy to bridge this gap is DBT.  Objectivists can't prove the null hypothesis, and will be unlikely to take a test that they themselves will believe to be fruitless.  Many subjectivists refuse to try DBT based on philosophical hang-ups or what they believe is a flawed method of testing for whatever reasons.
 

I thought SS amps sounded the same, unless there was something wrong with one, until I got better transducers and sharpened my listening skills.

 

I used to believe they sounded different, until I did a proper DBT.  Now I don't believe they sound different unless one or both is wrong.
 
Funny how people change . . .
 
Purrin wrote the following quote blocks:
 
 
 

You will realize that even seemingly innocuous things such as putting capacitors in the signal path (to block DC) or using opamps with different specs affects the sound.

 
Any real changes that occur could be measured, like changes in output impedance or oscillation on opamps.
 
 
 

 A well designed semi-portable CMOY with a good power supply circuit could actually be a better amp (more transparent) than the O2 for easier to drive headphones.

 
According to your anecdotes, but what proof do you actually have beyond such?  You do measurements, but you have yet to actually prove your subjective impressions tie to them in any meaningful way.  Effectively, your argument would be the same without any measurements at all at this point.
 
 
 

You will realize the the design O2 is really not that special.

 
It doesn't need to be special or exotic to be, by today's average EE standards, transparent.  That was generally the design goal besides cost.
 
 
 

Until then, in the absence of any meaningful data, test results, or personal experience, you just have a hypothesis no better than any of the more seemingly outlandish subjective claims. 

 
False.  Much of the research regarding meaningful data as we understand it has already been done.  You and various subjectivists have made claims about possible measurements that have yet to be made.  It's up to you to prove these using the scientific method.  Everything that's been claimed by the objectivists are measurable and repeatable.  It's up to you to disprove the null hypothesis, that's how science works.
 
 
 

 Sorry, but that's just how the scientific method works. Observe, measure, postulate, attempt to predict / correlate, observe, measure, measure more, measure more, gain confidence -or- throw out BS, adjust, measure, observe, measure more, etc.

 
His argument is based off past findings which used the scientific method effectively.  Yours are currently based off anecdotes and trying to find a correlation, but you really need to submit an approved methodology of testing and actually perform it in a test environment agreed upon to break new ground.
 
Until then, his stand merely on the merits of those that did the research long before him.  Yours needs to break new ground undergoing the same rigor those that did the initial research did.  Until then, his argument is inherently more meaningful because it's already based on past findings.
 
 
This response may have sounded rude, but this whole "both outlooks are equivalent" nonsense is rather tired and trite.  It isn't when going by the standards of understanding we have today.  The only excuse is this understanding is insufficient, but until we have evidence of that via the scientific method it's not merely going to be accepted and agreed upon.  Anyone can point at former research and use it as a source, they don't even need to inherently understand the intricacies of the research.  Those trying to disprove or expand upon it inherently do, and any findings they have are subject to tremendous amounts of scrutiny.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

What scientific discipline is your degree in purrin?

 
Our Service Manager is also an excellent field tech, he can fix just about anything we throw at him.
He has an Art's degree, but no technical degrees. 
Quote:

 
I'm a practicing electrical engineer, and know better than to dismiss someone based on his/her academic degree. Why don't you ask instead about what experience does someone have? Or try to make sense out of what someone says?

 
I am also a practicing EE, and I agree with Ultrabike..............'cos that's how it is in the real world.