I still cannot recall anyone saying all amps sound the same. Rather, if the amp being compared measures the same then it will sound the same. Furthermore, unlike a couple generations ago, it is relatively simple and inexpensive to design and build a amp that is transparent within its specifications, but some prefer a sound signature over transparency.
Archimago's blog is a good discussion on how and why amps can sound the same and sound different.
I still cannot recall anyone saying all amps sound the same. Rather, if the amp being compared measures the same then it will sound the same. Furthermore, unlike a couple generations ago, it is relatively simple and inexpensive to design and build a amp that is transparent within its specifications, but some prefer a sound signature over transparency.
Archimago's blog is a good discussion on how and why amps can sound the same and sound different.
That’s a nice read. Read it 2X. Though really........even though differences are slightly measurable, it seems to be damping factors/power which would be his determining factors on this specific amp choice? At least that’s what I get from the article. That there is subtle amp differences but it this case it was damping? A little? He also walks a fine line making both amp believers happy and the people who believe there is no amp differences happy. Plus he talks of comradely!
But he also points out that there will be the people that gravitate towards the “flea” powered setups, where a basic loss of damping is creating an euphonic tone/response. I think here in the headphone world you have less of that damping issue, but it’s still very much a thing. Especially with mismatched equipment. Speaking of mismatched the Schiit Asgard can’t drive my AKG k701s worth a darn. I’m pretty sure no one is going to find the loss of damping and resulting distortion to be favorable. Does the same thing happen with speakers, I don’t know? I guess it could?
Here’s a footnote regarding “voicing” amplifiers and what does it mean in general terms to actual amp designer:
“Voicing
July 21, 2012
by Paul McGowan
Yesterday I happened to mention how we use certain elements to "voice" a circuit and that sparked a few questions. What does voicing an amplifier mean?
Actually it's a really good question because one would think you'd want to make everything as neutral and true to the music as humanely possible. And, in fact, you would - but then reality gets in the way.
Let's make a couple of broad generalizations first: most digital sources are relatively thin and bright while most turntable sources are slow and fat. I know these are gross generalizations but when it comes to music, I don't really have any other terms - and when you're starting to design a digital circuit relative to a phono stage, you have to think differently about each. Perhaps for this post accept the terms as at least relevant to the discussion.
Also accept that different devices have different sonic characteristics as do different circuit topologies. Tubes and FET's are generally warmer, softer and slightly big sounding, while most bipolar devices and topologies based on them are somewhat the opposite.
So imagine all these elements as having different flavors and different textures and you as a master chef. You want to cook a world class meal and that involves combining all the various tastes and elements together to compliment each other and produce something remarkable.
This is what voicing is all about. It's probably a mistake when designing a circuit to pair a thin and bright sounding CD player front end with a similar sounding bipolar backend circuit - you'd be better off pairing it up with a warmer and softer sounding FET circuit, for example.
I know this isn't very scientific but then, neither is music and the art of reproducing it in a way that reaches down to your core and resonates with your soul.
That takes a master chef.”
So how is it possible when mixing that a standardization is achieved? Thus not one way is always the same for every studio across the globe. What the producers hear from the speakers is different from every mixing station, one to another?
I can do that as well: What standardization in playing the guitar? You think Julian Bream recordings sound the same as Jimi Hendrix recordings? Hang on, let me link to a definitive book on playing the guitar ...!
Of course, that's all nonsense because you didn't state that guitar playing was standardized. The only difference between this analogy and our discourse is that you have not REPEATEDLY asked me to note that you're NOT talking about the standardization of guitar performance!!!
I did NOT claim or imply that mixing is standardizied, in fact I implied the exact opposite. I also did NOT claim that all studio monitoring chains/environments sound the same, and in fact elsewhere, I've repeatedly stated the opposite, so why quote Toole at me? What I actually stated was "virtually all studios record using ruler flat ADCs, there is effectively a standardization that is "flat" at the recording level but again this is a flat frequency response, NOT flat frequency content!". Notice the part I've highlighted, "at the recording level", IE. NOT at the performance level, mixing level, mastering level, monitoring or any other level, at the recording level!!
How many times do I have to repeat and explain that I was talking about frequency response not frequency content?
Oh good, let's play that game again: Your saying all guitarists sound the same? ... In fact, I have heard differences between amps AND I even gave two actual examples of where I've heard differences (guitar amps and amps used with certain IEMs) and additionally, I've heard other differences, differences due to IMD in response to ultrasonic signals and distortion in both audiophile tube amp and microphone tube pre-amps.
I've already said what I'm saying. How many times do I have to repeat it? Any competently made amp should be indistinguishable from any other, given the obvious conditions. I'm basing this on the reliable evidence, not just my personal experience.
[1] Pretty sure most if not all pro-level microphones follow basic set criteria yet, [2] we don’t have to have an argument to a known fact that there are subtle differences in characteristics and nuances between dozens of popular pro-mics, right?
1. Not really, although it depends on exactly what you mean by "basic set criteria".
2. Apparently we do have to have an argument because there aren't just "subtle differences in characteristics and nuances between dozens of popular pro mics" the differences can sometimes be very significant and not subtle at all. However, if you're deliberately distorting your reproduction then maybe all the differences do sound subtle to you and maybe some of those differences that really are subtle disappear altogether!
For example, let's say I record an instrument and add a subtle amount of tube distortion to it (with a tube mic, a tube pre-amp or tube emulation software) and then I record another instrument without that subtle tube distortion. Now along you come and bathe both of them in liberal amounts of tube distortion from your tube amp, that artistic difference I've lovingly created is going to be significantly more subtle or very likely, completely inaudible! How do you get more "emotional connection" to what I have lovingly created by obliterating it?
You don't seem to realize that the arguments you're using actually up support my assertions and refute your own!
For one, you haven’t heard my system. Two, it’s far from “opaque” or less transparent. You might argue otherwise but to me, it’s a “window” to music with sparkling clean glass. Lol
I haven't heard or measured your system so there's no way to know for sure. We can only make guesses based on what you've stated/argued, on the fact that many audiophiles have very poor performing systems relative to how much they've spent on them and based on comparison with my own and other professional listening/monitoring environments I've experienced, that have been measured.
[1] Amps all sound slightly different due to transformers and capacitors, even internal wires make a slight change in sound. [2] Not only that but the topography and methods of amplifiers vary. .. You can respond with the fact that these are a style of distortions and a move away from a possible “flat” (whatever that is) response and I will not argue that.
Except it’s more than that. These characters are why people pay all kinds of $.
Transformers, capacitors and wires do not change the sound, they're not even operating with sound, they're operating with electricity. Therefore we have a few further questions:
1. Do they change the electrical current passing through them? Yes.
2. Does this change the actual sound that will be produced? Not unless it's broken or inappropriate for the task. For example, a single 10kOhm resistor will produce electrical noise around the -136dB level. Noise at that level is way below the noise floor of the speakers that do actually make the sound and so they will not be able to reproduce it.
3. Even if the distortion/noise is high enough to be actually be present in the reproduced sound, does it go beyond that threshold by enough to actually be audible. If it does, then by definition it is not appropriate for the task (and/or it's broken).
[1] Exactly. That’s why this sillily idea of chasing that imaginary dragon is nothing more then audiophile wet dream. ... [2] Let’s just say that one of my relatives is published recording artist. So I am not going to get into pissing contest.
1. Chasing high fidelity is the very definition of an audiophile isn't it? Does the fact we can't achieve perfect audible fidelity, except in digital audio (and amps), mean we shouldn't chase any amount of high fidelity?
2. Not getting into a "pissing contest" would be a very wise move (even though you've started to!), for two reasons: Firstly, an "appeal to authority" is an unacceptable argument in a science forum and Secondly, you'd loose that "pissing contest" anyway, by a large margin!!
[1] And yet, you wouldn’t be able to find 10 random audiophiles/music enthusiasts who would settled on your “uncompromised” approach to music reproduction. [2] It should be pretty apparent that personal preferences and variables in personal audio chain play a role. I don’t think that this is a hard concept to comprehend…..
1. And you wouldn't be able to find 10 random members of the Flat Earth Society who would settle on your "uncompromised" approach that the Earth is a sphere. Does that mean the Earth is flat?
2. No one is saying otherwise. Although I personally try to take my personal preferences out of the equation and instead appreciate the preferences of the artists who created the recordings.
By and large they did go the way of the Dodo bird! What percentage of consumer audio amps in the world do you think are tube amps? I'd bet it's a lot less than 1% these days.
Not just that industry but several, the audiophile DAC industry, the audiophile cable industry and various other audiophile industries, wasn't there even an audiophile green marker pen industry at one point? However, they're all relatively very tiny industries with one thing in common, the word "audiophile" before them! The fact that these tiny audiophile industries are in conflict with the science and with all the other branches of the same industries (the pro-audio industries for example) should AT LEAST give you pause for consideration!
I can do that as well: What standardization in playing the guitar? You think Julian Bream recordings sound the same as Jimi Hendrix recordings? Hang on, let me link to a definitive book on playing the guitar ...!
Of course, that's all nonsense because you didn't state that guitar playing was standardized. The only difference between this analogy and our discourse is that you have not REPEATEDLY asked me to note that you're NOT talking about the standardization of guitar performance!!!
I did NOT claim or imply that mixing is standardizied, in fact I implied the exact opposite. I also did NOT claim that all studio monitoring chains/environments sound the same, and in fact elsewhere, I've repeatedly stated the opposite, so why quote Toole at me? What I actually stated was "virtually all studios record using ruler flat ADCs, there is effectively a standardization that is "flat" at the recording level but again this is a flat frequency response, NOT flat frequency content!". Notice the part I've highlighted, "at the recording level", IE. NOT at the performance level, mixing level, mastering level, monitoring or any other level, at the recording level!!
How many times do I have to repeat and explain that I was talking about frequency response not frequency content?
Oh good, let's play that game again: Your saying all guitarists sound the same? ... In fact, I have heard differences between amps AND I even gave two actual examples of where I've heard differences (guitar amps and amps used with certain IEMs) and additionally, I've heard other differences, differences due to IMD in response to ultrasonic signals and distortion in both audiophile tube amp and microphone tube pre-amps.
I've already said what I'm saying. How many times do I have to repeat it? Any competently made amp should be indistinguishable from any other, given the obvious conditions. I'm basing this on the reliable evidence, not just my personal experience.
1. Not really, although it depends on exactly what you mean by "basic set criteria".
2. Apparently we do have to have an argument because there aren't just "subtle differences in characteristics and nuances between dozens of popular pro mics" the differences can sometimes be very significant and not subtle at all. However, if you're deliberately distorting your reproduction then maybe all the differences do sound subtle to you and maybe some of those differences that really are subtle disappear altogether!
For example, let's say I record an instrument and add a subtle amount of tube distortion to it (with a tube mic, a tube pre-amp or tube emulation software) and then I record another instrument without that subtle tube distortion. Now along you come and bathe both of them in liberal amounts of tube distortion from your tube amp, that artistic difference I've lovingly created is going to be significantly more subtle or very likely, completely inaudible! How do you get more "emotional connection" to what I have lovingly created by obliterating it?
You don't seem to realize that the arguments you're using actually up support my assertions and refute your own!
I haven't heard or measured your system so there's no way to know for sure. We can only make guesses based on what you've stated/argued, on the fact that many audiophiles have very poor performing systems relative to how much they've spent on them and based on comparison with my own and other professional listening/monitoring environments I've experienced, that have been measured.
Transformers, capacitors and wires do not change the sound, they're not even operating with sound, they're operating with electricity. Therefore we have a few further questions:
1. Do they change the electrical current passing through them? Yes.
2. Does this change the actual sound that will be produced? Not unless it's broken or inappropriate for the task. For example, a single 10kOhm resistor will produce electrical noise around the -136dB level. Noise at that level is way below the noise floor of the speakers that do actually make the sound and so they will not be able to reproduce it.
3. Even if the distortion/noise is high enough to be actually be present in the reproduced sound, does it go beyond that threshold by enough to actually be audible. If it does, then by definition it is not appropriate for the task (and/or it's broken).
1. Chasing high fidelity is the very definition of an audiophile isn't it? Does the fact we can't achieve perfect audible fidelity, except in digital audio (and amps), mean we shouldn't chase any amount of high fidelity?
2. Not getting into a "pissing contest" would be a very wise move (even though you've started to!), for two reasons: Firstly, an "appeal to authority" is an unacceptable argument in a science forum and Secondly, you'd loose that "pissing contest" anyway, by a large margin!!
1. And you wouldn't be able to find 10 random members of the Flat Earth Society who would settle on your "uncompromised" approach that the Earth is a sphere. Does that mean the Earth is flat?
2. No one is saying otherwise. Although I personally try to take my personal preferences out of the equation and instead appreciate the preferences of the artists who created the recordings.
By and large they did go the way of the Dodo bird! What percentage of consumer audio amps in the world do you think are tube amps? I'd bet it's a lot less than 1% these days.
Not just that industry but several, the audiophile DAC industry, the audiophile cable industry and various other audiophile industries, wasn't there even an audiophile green marker pen industry at one point? However, they're all relatively very tiny industries with one thing in common, the word "audiophile" before them! The fact that these tiny audiophile industries are in conflict with the science and with all the other branches of the same industries (the pro-audio industries for example) should AT LEAST give you pause for consideration!
I’d say there is a good chance of there being quite a few more folks that believe the Earth is flat compared to the number of self-described audiophiles. An overwhelming majority of listeners simply would not recognize any audible differences with amps, DACs, or cables. They would be right many more times than they would be wrong.
I’d say there is a good chance of there being quite a few more folks that believe the Earth is flat compared to the number of self-described audiophiles. An overwhelming majority of listeners simply would not recognize any audible differences with amps, DACs, or cables. They would be right many more times than they would be wrong.
Well, it is definite that the manufacturers would want the basic understanding of there products to “sound different” as a way of delivering a new and improved value. Or at the very least to show reason for making a new expenditure into a new level of audiophildom. Thus amp A is different than amp B and C.
1. Not really, although it depends on exactly what you mean by "basic set criteria".
2. Apparently we do have to have an argument because there aren't just "subtle differences in characteristics and nuances between dozens of popular pro mics" the differences can sometimes be very significant and not subtle at all. However, if you're deliberately distorting your reproduction then maybe all the differences do sound subtle to you and maybe some of those differences that really are subtle disappear altogether!
For example, let's say I record an instrument and add a subtle amount of tube distortion to it (with a tube mic, a tube pre-amp or tube emulation software) and then I record another instrument without that subtle tube distortion. Now along you come and bathe both of them in liberal amounts of tube distortion from your tube amp, that artistic difference I've lovingly created is going to be significantly more subtle or very likely, completely inaudible! How do you get more "emotional connection" to what I have lovingly created by obliterating it?
You don't seem to realize that the arguments you're using actually up support my assertions and refute your own!
Incorrect. Most if not all recordings done in 50’s, 60’s even 70’s (to a certain degree) where done almost exclusively on tube based components. Consumer base at that time was using mostly tube based gear as well. There where no class D amps and very small percent of emerging solid state amplifiers that were of mediocre to poor quality as far as sound reproduction quality goes.
If I use logic in your argument then everything recorded pre1970’s would mandate tube gear for “honest”, truthful reproduction of artist/mastering intend.......
Interesting. Lol
The problem I have with your firm believes and theories is that you seem to imply that YOUR way is the “right” approach to digest music...... what is that phrase..., yeah, as the artist intended to be heard.
I mean, honestly. If that's your goal and that's what drives you then fine. Go for it. And I wish you best of luck. But trying to impose those hysterical goals on others with totally different priorities and ways to enjoy music is a bit childish. No offence. But I don't get it.
Here’s a footnote regarding “voicing” amplifiers and what does it mean in general terms to actual amp designer:
“ by Paul McGowan
... I know this isn't very scientific but then, neither is music and the art of reproducing it in a way that reaches down to your core and resonates with your soul.
You mean from an actual audiophile amp designer! What do you expect him to say, "there's no audible difference, our $1,500 amp sounds the same as a mass produced $300 amp and therefore you shouldn't buy it"? He obviously has to try and explain that there is an audible difference, so that people will spend the extra to buy it, so how does he do that? In a way that's an understatement: "this isn't very scientific", even he admits he's effectively contradicting the science and that alone should ring alarm bells but apparently hasn't in your case, presumably because he uses a typical marketing tactic of throwing in a juicy red herring: Sure, music is an art and so is writing a novel or painting a picture, none of which have anything to do with an amp. His amps are not creating literary masterpieces, the Mona Lisa or pieces of music, they are just amplifying an electrical signal AND amplifying an electrical signal is ENTIRELY scientific with no art involved whatsoever!
Please note, this being the sound science forum we generally require that assertions which contradict science are supported by reliable evidence. Audiophile marketing, such as your Paul McGowan quote, is just about the very least reliable of all types of evidence!
I haven't heard or measured your system so there's no way to know for sure. We can only make guesses based on what you've stated/argued, on the fact that many audiophiles have very poor performing systems relative to how much they've spent on them and based on comparison with my own and other professional listening/monitoring environments I've experienced, that have been measured.
Exactly. But keep in mind. My listening space isn't a pro, “monitoring” environment but a humble living space to enjoy my favorite tunes. And as such, it's full of compromises to combine both realities. A living space with decent listening environment.
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was just a place for people to exchange experiences, connect with fellow music enthusiasts and source of anything music/headphone/audio related.
Pretty sure there's another forum with cult based around numbers and graphs. I don't think this place is that.
Not really interested in lable you give him. But he actually designs audio gear and that was his point of view. And he was addressing “voicing” question. Take it for what you may.
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was just a place for people to exchange experiences, connect with fellow music enthusiasts and source of anything music/headphone/audio related.
Pretty sure there's another forum with cult based around numbers and graphs. I don't think this place is that.
Not really interested in lable you give him. But he actually designs audio gear and that was his point of view. And he was addressing “voicing” question. Take it for what you may.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
