1. 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.

    Dismiss Notice

Testing audiophile claims and myths

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by prog rock man, May 3, 2010.
First
 
Back
839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848
850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859
Next
 
Last
  1. Sgt. Ear Ache
    Obfuscation is such a pathetic tactic. :jecklinsmile:
     
  2. Sgt. Ear Ache
    Yeah that's what I thought. So why do these guys keep bringing up durability of components and "military grade testing" lol...
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  3. bigshot
    Maybe they shift the goal posts because they know they can't argue the main point.

    I added the despised statement to my sig file.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  4. Sgt. Ear Ache
    how bout 2 minutes? You figure it's safe to say nobody on the planet can run a 2 minute mile, or do we need to hedge our bets on the possibility that there's someone out there who can?
     
  5. Sgt. Ear Ache
    DING DING DING DING DING!
     
  6. GearMe
    Hey man...not cool!
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  7. bigshot
    Sorry, I'll change it if you'd like
     
  8. analogsurviver
    @gregorio : I have yet to decide if I want to unblock you or not; I only can see your posts in my mailbox until then.

    However, do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?

    That additional would buy the customer better and more precisely toleranced electronic components in the circuit itself, better power supply - or even supplies, as in mono blocs; better chassis ( there is such a thing as microphony in amplifiers ... - and better, sturdier cabinets are there not only for looks, but can actually aid in better sound quality ), and so on and so forth.

    In history, there have been examples of identical ( or almost identical ) electrical scheme amplifiers built to two or even three different price points. The law of diminishing returns is very much still alive - as is the edge the pricier amps have over the lower priced. Saying that both perform and sound equally is simply not true.
     
  9. analogsurviver
    Both. Sorry for not making it clearer.
     
  10. Sgt. Ear Ache
    what don't you understand about the fact that it's been proven they DO sound the same? In comparison testing. For instance in the articles being discussed over the past few pages of this thread. Better components don't matter if they make no AUDIBLE difference. If the cheap stuff produces sound that has distortion well outside the bounds of human hearing, it doesn't matter if the more expensive amp produces 50% less distortion - it was ALREADY more than as good as it needed to be.
     
  11. bigshot
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  12. Sgt. Ear Ache
    So then you are telling me all amps need 300 hours of burn in to reach their published performance specs?
     
  13. GearMe
    Your call...

    I don't flag things but feel you can illustrate your side of an argument more effectively -- without an ad-hominem attack and degrading a group of people in one fell swoop.
     
  14. bigshot
    I think there is some literal truth to it, but I changed it by your request.
     
  15. analogsurviver
    Amps SHOULD perform better than the published specs - those are only the minimum performance figures. And most do just that - they get better.

    And, most of them do need about those 300 hours to really settle down and remain constant in performance - at least when operated at intended temperature. I hope no one will dispute the fact that amplifier from the stone cold after non operation for a considerable amount of time sounds exactly the same as after having reached its optimum operating temperature.

    Reaching published specs zealots have been perhaps best answered by Bob Carver; after one of his tested amps failed to reach published power output by a few watts ( at 100 or 200 W spec IIRC ) due to a few too little turns of wire in the secondary of the transformer in the first batch, both competition and specsomaniacs had a field day. After that, he spec'd all of his amps as 101 + 101 Watts, 201 +201 Watts, 401 + 401 Watts, etc - and seeing to that that even with AC voltage lower than normal, that " one more watt " has been available.
     
First
 
Back
839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848
850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859
Next
 
Last

Share This Page