Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
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.”
I think Paul McGowan has a valid point.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!
G
After spending a lifetime with vinyl I totally agree the turntable source is slow and fat and the digital source is fast and bright. I have spent the last 10 years attempting to replicate the vinyl sound with digital and firmly believe there is a difference. People can say Paul is just marketing his products but to me he is right on the mark. There is an intrinsic difference to vinyl. Funny too, as when I started in SS about 12 years ago vinyl was dragged around as the worst thing ever. Now that it has had a profound resurgence, the format gets slightly more respect again here. But it's safe to say Paul has had a successful career at whatever he is doing. Thus many here are going to judge him but never heard his products, that any success must be from some style of trickery or misleading. haha
The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect in my eyes. Who is to say what flat is? Are all methods of ADC the same? No, there are variations of tone. It may be slight, and truthfully I'm not even sure if they are audible, but there is differences. The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC. I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds. Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact. Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years. The fact that it's not the same as digital and maybe never will be fully understood.
Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?
Last edited: