View Full Version : Which has had more impact: upgrades or learning?
I've been thinking about this recently: have I reached audio nirvana purely because I've upgraded to the point where all my equipment is the best I can afford and I can go no further? Or is there an element of wisdom in what I have achieved in recent years?
Another way of looking at it: if I could go back to my student days with my limited budget, would I be able to construct a better system now than I was able to then? The answer in my case must undoubtedly be yes. What would be different? Certainly some of my best learning in the area of mains feed and treatment; the importance of siting, isolation, speaker positioning, spikes, cables, earthing, RFI. Also most likely my ability to hear and recognise problems and more easily identify their root cause.
I am convinced that I could construct a good sounding system from used/budget equipment and make it sound good. I am equally convinced that, had I been given my current equipment when I was younger, I could not make it sound as good then as it does now.
So how much influence has learning had on my listening enjoyment? It's difficult to quantify, but I guess a lot. What do others think?
I think learning is all where equipment is concerned. I feel you develop an "instinct" about gear and decent sound as time goes on.
I've heard so many low-cost systems that suspend disbelief and allow the music to shine through and my own vintage lashup is hopefully some proof of that to my ears. Little of my gear is worth very much - most items £200 or less each and the CD player and Spendors well under £500 each I suspect.
I'd love to hear the first budget audio system again that got me into some of the rock/prog stuff in 1970 -
Garrard SP25 mk3 with AT66 cartridge
Metrosound ST20 (got one of these in need of tlc)
Wharfedale Dentons (original)
Maybe today it sounds pants, but at the time that setup above introduced me to Led Zep/Pink Floyd/Groundhogs/Yes/VDG Generator/Jethro Tull/Carole King/James Taylor/Curved Air and many others, so it was doing its job very well IMO.
chris@panteg
13-09-2010, 09:20
I agree learning is the key , and it does help having 25 years of faffing around with different kit ! making some awful mistakes some not so bad.
Back in the 80's there were no fancy mains cables and other such aids to help get your system fine tuned .
I do believe its not how much you spend ' but get the synergy right and even a budget system can let you forget about the kit and just lose yourself in the music , then you just find yourself buying more LP/CD's or whatever and going to live gigs and such.
Soldering Iron and reading a diagram with valves in it was the move from low-fi Quad-Nytech-Rega-Mission.
.
For me it was making lots of silly mistakes I can remember thinking once I would never get to the point where I love the sound I get
anthonyTD
13-09-2010, 15:08
I agree learning is the key , and it does help having 25 years of faffing around with different kit ! making some awful mistakes some not so bad.
Back in the 80's there were no fancy mains cables and other such aids to help get your system fine tuned .
I do believe its not how much you spend ' but get the synergy right and even a budget system can let you forget about the kit and just lose yourself in the music , then you just find yourself buying more LP/CD's or whatever and going to live gigs and such.
:)
theophile
23-09-2010, 05:50
Agree 100% about learning.Even posted about it in this thread over at AudioKarma;
http://audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4005427&postcount=44
A chap asked this:
"ok i dont own any tube related audio gear, and i have not listened to any either.
something sparked my curiosity, and from just being here for awhile i have heard that tubes have a warm, smooth sound, however that sound is distorted,, actually being less flat or true than solidstate amplifiers.
can sombody further explain this for me?
i would like to see a typical frequency graph showing the common curve of tube related gear."
The discussion rambled,to the point where it was stated that one should hear no difference between tubes and solid state.My reply should be read in the spirit-that there are real world situations where the difference between solid state and tube is going to be obvious because of the interactions that would take place.That components can be wrongly utilised in poor situations or conversely found to benefit in others.My recommendation to the fellow was that he should set about learning about the ways to maximise component compatibility whilst also learning how to minimise the problems encountered with system building.
It's one thing to have the inclination and the means.It's another thing altogether to know how to achieve to goal wisely and in full knowledge.
__________________
Indeed, it's a point that some of us have discussed in the past. What a few of us discovered over at my house not so long ago is that a very well designed solid state power amp (my Chord SPM-1200E) and a very well designed valve power amp (Marco's Copper amp) can sound remarkably close to each other. Different technologies, similar performance envelope. However, the learning that we have both accumulated over the years about how best to apply what we use is key to getting great performance from these great components.
Frankly, frequency response curves are so way off indicating how a component sounds that they become little more than magazine review fodder. Waterfall and RFI curves certainly have greater value, but you can't beat a pair of ears and the years of accumulated experience in using them.
Its strange when people talk about warm with tubes I just do not get it, in my system. I do not think anyone would describe my system as warm
Its about implementation and good design
Warm with tubes is often due to the inevitably higher output impedance of transformer coupled valve amps reacting with a passive speaker's crossover, which also gets in the way.
I thought my BC2's would boom with the Quad II's driving them, but in fact the opposite is true, the bass appearing rolled off or "lighter" in feel. The treble "sweetness" I'm getting is more to do with subtle compression I think. For a 1950's design, it's great.
Modern valve amps with the benefit of modern components and decent (and sadly expensive) output transformers minimise these characteristics.
I'm going off the plot again... It's good to learn, but I learn from experience rather than theory, so there's merit in both methods.
Spectral Morn
23-09-2010, 09:23
Its strange when people talk about warm with tubes I just do not get it, in my system. I do not think anyone would describe my system as warm
Its about implementation and good design
Just to the warmer side of neutral John..... If it had been bright, forward or thin I would not have enjoyed my visit back in March.
Regards D S D L
anthonyTD
23-09-2010, 11:34
hi all,
well,,, i certainly dont design or build valve amps that sound soft, warm etc, if i thought that was all that was obtainable from valves i would have given them the push years ago!:eek:
seriously though as others have said when you have two well designed amps from both camps there can be very little in diffrence as far as performance/test wise is concerned, the big mistake most people make with either technology is partnering an amp with the wrong speakers and source equipment, thats where the game is won or lost with both valve and solid state amps.:)
regards,anthony,TD...
Hi Martin,
Indeed, it's a point that some of us have discussed in the past. What a few of us discovered over at my house not so long ago is that a very well designed solid state power amp (my Chord SPM-1200E) and a very well designed valve power amp (Marco's Copper amp) can sound remarkably close to each other. Different technologies, similar performance envelope. However, the learning that we have both accumulated over the years about how best to apply what we use is key to getting great performance from these great components.
Absolutely. There is no substitute for experience and having an open mind. It's all about trial and error, and crucially, learning from your mistakes and using that information to your benefit in future!
I completely agree with your remarks regarding our respective amps, and let's not forget it was my modified Croft preamp you were listening to as well as the Copper amp, which as a combination, as you rightly say, were far more alike compared to your Chord solid-state combo, than not. Both were extremely dynamic sounding and offered a genuinely wide-open window onto the music.
What shocked me in particular was that, subjectively, the Copper amp, at a mere 30 WPC, sounded as 'powerful' through your huge Ushers as your 350W Chord behemoth - appearing just as 'unburstable', with seemingly limitless headroom. I think that's testament to the excellence of both designs, and shows that top-notch valve and solid-state equipment can sound and perform in a remarkably similar way.
With reference to what theophile wrote, properly designed, high quality, valve equipment does not sound "warm and smooth", or 'lush', 'romantic', or any of the other inappropriate adjectives I often read being used to describe the sonic effect of valves (or 'toobs', as our friends on the other side of the pond call them).
I don't do 'lush' or 'warm' - I absolutely ABHOR that type of sonic presentation, and there isn't one single component in my system which exhibits those characteristics, bearing in mind that the vast majority of my system is made up of vintage gear, or a simply a modern interpretation of such.
I value musical realism, and for that you need neutrality, as far as possible, high resolution and a wide-open frequency response from the components that make up your system. Quite simply, the valve equipment I use gives me exactly that, which is contrary to what certain measurements would have you believe.
Frankly, frequency response curves are so way off indicating how a component sounds that they become little more than magazine review fodder. Waterfall and RFI curves certainly have greater value, but you can't beat a pair of ears and the years of accumulated experience in using them.
Too right! Measurements only tell you *so* much. It's a completely flawed way of judging solely how hi-fi equipment sounds, but some people can't get that into their stubbornly thick heads! :rolleyes:
Unfortunately certain people (the 'scientific proof' obsessed) are afflicted with the inability to trust their ears, and so lose out on discovering so many things in audio, I believe to the significant detriment of their listening pleasure.....
As they say, scepticism is healthy, cynicism (most certainly) isn't!
Marco.
With respect Marco, I think that the most successful "objective engineers" have listened extensively as well, even AVI :eyebrows:
Back in the olden days, it was essential to get amps to measure right and nasty effects of crossover distortion in both valve and ss amps was discussed as a sonic weakness. Somewhere in the mid seventies, measurements were dismissed and certain easily measurable things that degraded the sonics were brushed under the carpet as irrelevant. Naim based twenty years of production on the sonic result of deliberate design oddities and the measurable consequences of them. Their current stuff measures and sounds rather different I'm told.
It's also well accepted that the speaker is the least efficient and most distorted component in practically any audio system. for decades, the best of these have had their inadequacies jiggled with by LISTENING to them and although Alan Shaw of Harbeth (for example) spent a good while optimising his current designs using computer software, he spent many times longer listening, tweaking and listening again. THAT's one reason why his products are revered in the far east and treasured by the few clients in the UK who own and enjoy them.
Hi Dave,
With respect Marco, I think that the most successful "objective engineers" have listened extensively as well, even AVI :eyebrows:
Indeed.
However, my comments weren't aimed at equipment designers or manufacturers, who clearly need to concern themselves with measurements, but rather at the pig-headed self-appointed 'consumer champions', many of whom populate other forums, who are simply end users of products with no real need to obsess over measurements, and yet who do so regardless, and can't simply trust their perfectly capable God-given senses without endlessly worrying about being 'fooled', whilst unqualified, insisting on psycho-analysing everyone else who is willing to trust their ears and who don't sign up to their blinkered dogma! :wanker:
Back in the olden days, it was essential to get amps to measure right and nasty effects of crossover distortion in both valve and ss amps was discussed as a sonic weakness.
Yep, but the problem was that they paid too much attention to what their oscilloscopes told them, and not enough to what their ears did.
"Back in the olden days" was when most valve circuits and equipment were invented (when real innovation happened), which many of today's current designs are based on, so it just shows how much they didn't discover in those days by endlessly chasing 'perfect specs', when today we can obtain awesome sounding results from largely the same equipment, albeit with the use of modern components and know-how.
The truth is, the basic circuits (not to mention valves themselves) were bloody good back then - we just didn't have the 'infrastructure' or knowledge to realise, or implement, their potential!
It's also well accepted that the speaker is the least efficient and most distorted component in practically any audio system. for decades, the best of these have had their inadequacies jiggled with by LISTENING to them and although Alan Shaw of Harbeth (for example) spent a good while optimising his current designs using computer software, he spent many times longer listening, tweaking and listening again. THAT's one reason why his products are revered in the far east and treasured by the few clients in the UK who own and enjoy them.
Indeed, and I have a great respect for the designs of Alan Shaw.
What I'd like to know, however, is what criteria is used by equipment designers to ascertain when listening reveals information about the performance of a product that mere measurements can't - basically, how do they decide when to measure and when to listen?
And if we take this notion a step further, then surely by doing so they are effectively admitting that there are effects in audio which can clearly be heard, but which are currently not measurable, thereby contradicting the (I believe misguided) belief amongst diehard 'objectivists' that everything we can genuinely hear in audio can (currently) be measured....?
If that were genuinely the case, then manufacturers wouldn't bother listening to their equipment at all during the design process, would they??
Think about it! ;)
Marco.
In the case of BBC Legacy speakers, it's natural and realistic reproduction of speech which is important and there are pages and pages of research from the late sixties comparing measurement with sonic outcomes. It's not just response, but dispersion as well (Tannoy made a whole design concept in the DC models out of such research decades ago)..
Where amps were concerned, not all valve designs were wonderful, but the ones that made it into legend worldwide were pretty darned good. Transistor amps of the 60's were truly hideous and it was the likes of Quad (303), Sugden (A21), leak (Stereo 30 and 70) and maybe a very few others that paved the way for success with these devices I think. The golden age of the mid 70's was only a few years later - amazing the progress that was made then before the progressive downgrading began in the major Japanese companies.
Just to the warmer side of neutral John..... If it had been bright, forward or thin I would not have enjoyed my visit back in March.
Regards D S D L
Be interesting on your thoughts now with the new baffles as they made a big difference
Some components, particularly MOSFET transistors, took a lot longer for designers to get a handle on how to use them well. Remember the Hitachi MOSFET amp and application note used by many others? Awful, undynamic and strangulated sound. Now that MOSFETs are better understood (high gate capacitance, negative thermal runaway etc.), modern amps using them sound superb.
dale kid
23-09-2010, 14:47
Measurements provide a useful benchmark that perhaps can act as a guide when making comparisons between similar items of audio equipment. Such measurements should of course always be tempered by indivudual aural desires and application of accumulated knowledge over the years.
As for learning by one's mistooks, I of coarse never milk them.
May your days be long and peaceful, Dale
Hi Dave,
In the case of BBC Legacy speakers, it's natural and realistic reproduction of speech which is important and there are pages and pages of research from the late sixties comparing measurement with sonic outcomes. It's not just response, but dispersion as well (Tannoy made a whole design concept in the DC models out of such research decades ago)..
It would be interesting to speak to someone who was involved in the process.
It's not just speakers that need to be listened to as well as measured by designers and manufacturers, but electronic equipment (and cables), too.
Where amps were concerned, not all valve designs were wonderful, but the ones that made it into legend worldwide were pretty darned good.
I agree, but as far as I'm aware, virtually all of today's valve amps are based on 1940/50s Mullard circuits, or similar. Very few, if any, to my knowledge are designed around completely new circuits.
Therefore, this proves that the old circuits were extremely good and simply needed modern components to release their full potential, which is exactly the design methodology my Copper amp (and many other superb valve amps made today) were born from.
However, all that aside, you're missing my main point, which is this: you said earlier....
With respect Marco, I think that the most successful "objective engineers" have listened extensively as well, even AVI :eyebrows:
I don't doubt that for a second, but the question I would ask is: what exactly are they listening extensively for that doesn’t show up on their test equipment?
If the blinkered mouthpiece from AVI considers listening to and not just measuring his products necessary, then by definition he's admitting that measurements alone don't tell the whole story, which in turn suggests that there are effects in audio which can be heard but not currently measured, thereby rendering his bluster to the contrary (and that of others of his mindset) as nonsense.
No?
Marco.
Measurements provide a useful benchmark that perhaps can act as a guide when making comparisons between similar items of audio equipment.
Indeed. They are simply nothing more than a GUIDE; they certainly do not act as irrefutable data (as far as indicating whether sonic effects heard by the human ear and brain exist or not) as some would have you believe!
Such measurements should of course always be tempered by indivudual aural desires and application of accumulated knowledge over the years.
Absolutely, Dale. That's precisely the judgement criteria I use when ascertaining the efficacy of audio equipment or ancillaries used in my system - it's the ONLY way to achieve genuinely superb (real world) results! :)
Marco.
Any thoughts on this, Dave... The questions I asked weren't meant to be rhetorical ;)
With respect Marco, I think that the most successful "objective engineers" have listened extensively as well, even AVI :eyebrows:
To which I replied:
I don't doubt that for a second, but the question I would ask is: what exactly are they listening extensively for that doesn’t show up on their test equipment?
If the blinkered mouthpiece from AVI considers listening to and not just measuring his products necessary, then by definition he's admitting that measurements alone don't tell the whole story, which in turn suggests that there are effects in audio which can be heard but not currently measured, thereby rendering his bluster to the contrary (and that of others of his mindset) as nonsense.
No?
:)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
23-09-2010, 21:01
Be interesting on your thoughts now with the new baffles as they made a big difference
I should be going to the Park Inn show next March so we could do again what we did this March....
Regards D S D L
Marco, I did read that but felt unable to compose an intelligent reply. The bottom line for these people is to get a decent and stable measured performance. In the case of the speakers, the drive-unit designers helped with the basic units' parameters - magnet strength, damping, response possibilities etc and suggested a suitable cabinet volume to suit and what port tuning to use if the result was a properly controlled cone, rather than "extra bass honk," which is how most ported speakers are sadly tuned. Martin G then designed the amps to suit the particular drivers (only) and set the crossovers. Active drive helped them use steep filters which are difficult and complex in passive models and so on. The end result was a revelation to them and to many people, but I don't want to be devils advocate yet again.
What I'm trying to say is that basic objective design can sort much of it out. the remaining tweaking can be done by ear - a db here, a couple of db there, especially in the crossover where the drivers need to be fine tuned together despite several good measuring alternatives being available. The lower the tweeter crossover frequency, the better the dispersion at the top of the bass unit's range, but the more compromised the tweeter becomes as it's asked to go lower than it may be comfortable with. In active speakers, this is less of a problem but it's a disaster waiting to happen in passive designs (been there myself with Musical Technology metal coned speakers with a 1.8KHz crossover and a tweeter that didn't like it over-much).
I didn't want to write an essay on this I'm afraid and I've been defending a maker who doesn't need defending and I've been asked politely not to mention them if you remember. Hope these jottings help a bit.
One final thing with amps. It was popular in the 70's to all but cripple an amp's sonic abilities just to get the lowest THD figures. Weedy power supplies could always give high Wattage output into a resistor at 1KHz, but musical signals into typical speaker loads could defeat them. All of this has been known for decades by professionals, but the marketing depts used to get in the way back then.
I'm getting out of my depth now and should leave the rest to qualified engineers who really do know what they're on about ;)
I couldn't agree more with what you've written, Dave :)
However, that doesn't alter the fact that there are (quite obviously) effects that exist in audio which must be judged/analysed by ear, as opposed to an oscilloscope or associated test equipment.
Therefore, if one accepts this as fact, then one must also accept that measurements alone do not tell the FULL story with audio, which as you well know, is the exact opposite of what Mr Mouthpiece from AVI and his cronies (and all people of a similar mindset on other forums), advocate.
Yes?
Now think about what that means when analysing the sonic effect of cables or stands, or anything else which is said by the proof-first 'measurement Über Alles brigade' to be automatically and undisputably 'imagined'....
If they're admitting that measurements alone aren’t sufficient to enable one to design equipment properly, and the ear must be used to 'fine tune' results, then what other areas of audio also cannot be sufficiently dealt with or FULLY explained by measurements alone?
By the way, these questions are aimed at everyone here, not just you! I would like to hear what others, as well as you, think in that respect.
Marco.
theophile
23-09-2010, 21:53
I have had exchanges with a fellow(on another forum) who insists that flat measured frequency response is the holy grail for speakers.
I pointed-out the situation(which I see/hear everyday)where one is walking past a house.One can hear someone playing a drum kit from inside a completely closed garage.
Now,I pointed-out to this chap who is 'measurements uber alles',that we never at any instance hear the drummer.What we hear is the sound transducing through the walls,roof,roller-door,windows etc of the fully-closed garage.None of those 'transducers' are linear/flat frequency response,yet we can identify 100% positively instantly that we are hearing a real live drummer,despite not actually being able to see exactly what is going-on in that garage.
In other words,the non-linear,non flat frequency response building materials that make-up the garage are able to convey "This is the sound of a real person playing a real instrument" so convincingly that it would be picked as 'real' 100% of the time.
Mr measurements response(the gist):I could build a pair of speakers which would sound more real.
To which I replied; More 'real' than a guy playing drums in a garage?
There is a 'quality' to live sound which we haven't captured yet.I personally feel that the breakthrough in recording High Fidelity sound has to come from microphone development.If we don't capture it there,how does it trickle-down to the rest of the chain?
You make some good points.
I'm afraid it's impossible to penetrate the rhino-thick hide of those people, and unassailable arrogance that they alone are right, accumulated over years of using science as 'crutch' to confirm their world view, even when faced with the fact that when it comes to audio, science alone currently can't provide all the answers.
I often wonder if these people are almost afraid to be human, by trusting their God-given senses, having an almost pathological fear of being 'fooled', and would far rather be a robot programmed to function on 'logical data' alone to avoid even considering the notion of trusting their ears :rolleyes:
Or maybe be a Vulcan like Mr Spock from Star Trek? 'Illogical data does not compute, Captain'.... That's who some of them remind me of with their ridiculously abnormal behaviour! :lol:
Marco.
theophile
23-09-2010, 22:30
You make some good points.
I'm afraid it's impossible to penetrate the rhino-thick hide of those people, and unassailable arrogance that they alone are right, accumulated over years of using science as 'crutch' to confirm their world view, even when faced with the fact that when it comes to audio, science alone currently can't provide all the answers.
I often wonder if these people are almost afraid to be human, by trusting their God-given senses, having an almost pathological fear of being 'fooled', and would far rather be a robot programmed to function on 'logical data' alone to avoid even considering the notion of trusting one's ears :rolleyes:
Or maybe be a Vulcan like Mr Spock from Star Trek? 'Illogical data does not compute, Captain'.... That's who some of them remind me of with their ridiculously unnatural behaviour! :lol:
Marco.
I've often thought that there should be two entries in the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the heading Science:
'Objective investigation into natural phenomena' and 'Religious Cult'. :mental:
Hehehe.... You've got it! For those people, science *is* their religion!!
But you'll NEVER get them to admit that ;)
You won't believe how much that amuses me.
Marco.
theophile
23-09-2010, 22:46
I've often thought that there should be two entries in the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the heading Science:
'Objective investigation into natural phenomena' and 'Religious Cult'. :mental:
The difference between the two camps is that one believes that we gather information but never hold all the answers;whilst the other camp believes that the latest discovery closes the book and answers all questions.
You can try to design a speaker with a reasonably flat frequency response, although that in itself is quite difficult. However, the moment you put said speakers into a real room, you have anything but a flat frequency response. How the speaker interacts with the room and its driving equipment then becomes paramount.
You can then take one of two routes: either play with speaker positioning, driving equipment and room tuning using your ears to get the best possible sound (my method); or you can use digital room correction to do the job for you, but run your precious signal through a mountain of digital compensation circuitry in the process. The first is the do-it-by-ears method, the second uses science. I leave you to decide which method is preferable.
anthonyTD
24-09-2010, 17:05
hi all,
good speaker design is somewhat of an art, as dave and others like martin has pointed out, after -all its the most distorted part of the chain to start with! All speaker drive unit designers can do is supply drive units with test parameters with which a speaker designer can work his magic with, it is posible to gain an almost perfect flat frequency response with well designed drivers and crossover networks, however most drive units would need very complicated cross-over networks to achieve this which in most cases is not desireable as they eat amplifier power like its going out of fashion. Even if you had a speaker that tested flat it would probably sound well,,,flat, especialy if used in any other enviroment other than a anachoic chamber!
anthony,TD...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.