Too expensive, perhaps? Certainly a whole lot cheaper just to reprint the manufacturers' spec sheet which seems to becoming the preferred option for more mags these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
Printable View
Too expensive, perhaps? Certainly a whole lot cheaper just to reprint the manufacturers' spec sheet which seems to becoming the preferred option for more mags these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
Perhaps. I don't often see magazines even reprinting the manufacturers specs. In fact, it's not unusual for the manufacturers not to publish specs at all, especially in the high end. Science, it seems, has fallen out of fashion in audio. Why? That's where I need to refrain from indulging in conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by REM
Tim
It seems that neither the industry nor the AES have an interest into associating the measurements (yet, to be defined) with a perceived quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
That's my point of view. ;)
From The Grave
Double-blind listening tests - just say no. Horrible artificial things which put listeners under stress to hear differences.
I use magazine reviews as a short-list aid, no more. For this, the magazines I respect (Stereophile, HFN) do a good job. After that, there is nothing to beat going to a dealership and listening for real, followed by a home loan. Don't accept anything less. BUT - if you like the kit, buy it from the dealer who demo'd it to you, not more cheaply from the internet.
Magazines have become little more than 'advertorials' these days, especially as sales fall and costs increase. I would not trust a magazine 'reviewer' as far as I could throw them, there are tales of bribery and favouritism within the industry, and do you really believe you would get an honest review of a product if the manufacturer effectively pays the reviewers wages indirectly via advertising revenue? I don't think so. I remember the famous case of the ex-reviewer and his wife, both in the employ of a certain cable manufacturer now, who as a reviewer needlessly banged on about the [insert cable co. name here] cables he was using as much as the product he was supposed to be testing. Later he left the magazine and went to work for that cable company, what a surprise. Of course, not all reviewers are as bad, but tales of freebies and permanent loan of equipment is a tempting offer in return for a positive review. :rolleyes:
Perfectly correct in my experience. Thank you. HowardQuote:
Originally Posted by jandl100
*****************************
Hmm. the 0 > 62 mph performance measurement of my car gives no indication of the comfort of the seating. Similarly vice-versa. The point being that until some serious intellectual horsepower is given to inventing measurement tests that actually translate into something of value, then the quest is futile. Simple as that. As for me, as both a civilian and retailer I really don’t give a stuff. And neither does my main supplier LFD. Request for measurements and specs from measurement groupies are met with polite distain – because that’s the appropriate response. And of course because demand for the product far outstrips demand for stupid irrelevant measurements – which helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by REM
*****************************************
I couldn't agree more. I decided to get rid of my Mission 773's because they just didn't sound right in my listening room. The top and middle frequencies were ok, but there was no bass to speak of. When the buyer came round to pick them up I was in the middle of moving my listening room around, so I set them up in the kitchen connected to a NAD C340 amp and an old Sony CDP from an early 90's midi system. IC's were cheapo red and white jobbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by hifi_dave
The guy arrived as I was finishing off setting up so I hadn't had a chance to listen to them myself before he arrived. Well, all I can say is that the sound that came out of those 773's was nothing short of astonishing. I could have cried :lolsign:
A fine, fine sentiment but utterly unrealistic in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=18&blogId=1
It doesn’t really matter what some golden eared journalist, if I don’t write nice bullshit about this product I wont have a job next week thinks does it coz as all us subjectivists know, what he/she hears with his/her kit ain’t going to be nothing like what you hear is it? So it’s pointless unless there is some set of objective parameters right?
Wadaya mean NO! :eek:
You can’t have it both ways ffs. Either we trust out ears and apparently we don’t all hear the same, I mean, if we did that would be objective then wouldn’t it, or we trust to measurement which hopefully wont get altered by financial considerations.
John - all magazines can do is give a guideline so as to create a shortlist. Otherwise you are left with a sea of hundreds of products and no way to filter.
The trick is to latch on to a reviewer whose musical and equipment tastes match your own.
Ken Kessler in my case.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
Hmm this find one you trust business sounds okay if you say it quick enough ;)
Point is though, as the recent thread about Quad’s Peter Walker illustrates
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13291
the people that design Hi Fi components tend to design to a specification and like it or not that means measurement.
The very silly may choose to believe that once the required measured performance is attained the designer and a few trusted ears fine tune these components by ear but if that were in fact true, what was the point of the measuring bit if your going to say that doesn’t sound right with speaker A but is okay with speaker B but not with cable F but not on Wednesday?
Do you see where I’m coming from? You can fine tune by ear but only to a particular set of criteria after that its pointless because the likelihood of anyone buying that product and having exactly the same ancillary components, listening environment and hearing is non existent.
The next problem is of course if you’re a company, how do you instruct your technicians to build a component to “how it sounded last week at Bills place”?
You just can’t can you. You have to build to some specification.
Then of course there is the cost involved. Just how much time can you afford to spend listening to the various equipment permutations? What do you do, take two or maybe three people into a room and listen to music for a few weeks?
Of course the manufacturers say they’ve spent thousands of pounds and listening hours in developing their product. But, when I worked in the avionics industry and they have huge R&D budgets it went more like;
Get what the opposition are making.
Measure that.
Rip it to bits.
See what can be replaced at less cost with improved specification.
Make a prototype.
Make it look pretty for customer (yep, even the military like eye candy)
Get an order.
Get the product out the door as fast as possible coz you know your competitors are doing exactly the same.
There have been a few exaples here on AoS of a product going from conception to a manufactured reality. Anyone get asked to participate in any listening tests?
So the Hi Fi reviewer gets a unit. If you’re lucky they’ll actually listen to it for a couple of hours. What can they say about a product? The simple fact is the differences between one amplifier and another say in a properly set up review are going to be slight. After a couple of reviews you’re kinda stuffed for descriptive stuff which is why the reviewer writes so much crap. They can’t do much else can they coz describing how something sounds is hard just once let alone issue after issue.
They can’t write bad stuff about a product coz the publication just won’t get offered kit to review afterwards.
Most journalists don’t know shit about electronics/acoustics so the cant write technical stuff.
It seems from some of the reviews I’ve read that some of these journalists don’t even know how to plug the stuff in properly.
Above all what needs to be remembered even by those who believe in the Hi Fi fairy is that those in the Hi Fi media have a vested interest in perpetuating all and any myths regarding Hi Fi that can help keep the market ticking over.
Its fact. It’s the way of the world.
Once you’ve accepted the above then might be the time to try your hand at the win £25K in the pick that amp competition. Don’t tell me I’m wrong, prove it to me.
Hi John,
I get where you're coming from, but you're missing the point somewhat, me old son.Quote:
Hmm this find one you trust business sounds okay if you say it quick enough
Point is though, as the recent thread about Quad’s Peter Walker illustrates
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13291
the people that design Hi Fi components tend to design to a specification and like it or not that means measurement.
The very silly may choose to believe that once the required measured performance is attained the designer and a few trusted ears fine tune these components by ear but if that were in fact true, what was the point of the measuring bit if your going to say that doesn’t sound right with speaker A but is okay with speaker B but not with cable F but not on Wednesday?
Do you see where I’m coming from? You can fine tune by ear but only to a particular set of criteria after that its pointless because the likelihood of anyone buying that product and having exactly the same ancillary components, listening environment and hearing is non existent.
The next problem is of course if you’re a company, how do you instruct your technicians to build a component to “how it sounded last week at Bills place”?
You just can’t can you. You have to build to some specification.
I guess that when it comes to mass-produced equipment from huge mainstream manufacturers, particularly at the budget end of the market, there has to be some form of 'objective template', based on set measurement criteria, for the people who build the equipment to follow, in order for said products to be manufactured to a high standard of safety and consistency.
I'm guessing that's the case, but I've never been inside the relevant factories when equipment is being produced to find out. Perhaps someone who has could comment?
However, when it comes to smaller, more specialist manufacturers, it's a different kettle of fish. They most definitely listen to the results they achieve, building equipment based on objective measurement (in order that the equipment concerned meets certain basic electrical parameters), but they voice the final results by ear.
'Building to a specification' (referring to the part of your text I've highlighted in bold) is achieved by small, specialist, companies making bespoke equipment, through fulfilling the standards set by the designer in every instance when a product is made, i.e. once equipment has met its basic electrical parameters, it is then listened to and checked by the designer in a familiar test system, or someone he or she trusts, to ensure that the equipment passes the required standard, before it leaves the premises and is shipped to dealers or direct to end users.
*That* is their version of 'building to a specification'.
Perhaps that's why the best bespoke designed equipment often sounds superior to kit which has been churned out by major manufacturers in huge quantities? That's certainly mostly the case, in my experience!
Of course the customer cannot replicate the system testing conditions, in his or her home, used by a designer manufacturing bespoke equipment, and so the results they achieve in their own systems will always be different. But then that's the case with all equipment, both bespoke and mass-produced.
Also, bespoke equipment will never sound absolutely identical from box to box and achieve the same exacting standards of consistency maintained by large companies making mass-produced products, built to a standardised 'objective template', but such is the nature of the beast.... And their customers wouldn't want it any other way, because they trust the ears and expertise of their favourite audio designer! :)
I'll ask you a question... How do you think Anthony TD designs his superb sounding valve amps - do you think he simply solders a few bits together, measures the results, and as long as everything is 'A-ok' in a measurements and electrical sense, he just packs it up and ships it out?
Of course he doesn't. What happens if, despite what he's built fulfilling every known rule in the 'objectivist's book of measurements', it still sounds pants? Or rather, mediocre compared to how he thinks it should sound, or indeed how good it *could* sound with some minor adjustments?
Does he just shrug his shoulders and say to himself: 'Well, I've built the amp to the 'required specification', and it measures wonderfully, so fuck it, I'll sell it anyway even if I think it sounds pish...!' Of course he doesn't, he'll take it off the bench and tweak the design, making some subtle component changes, measure again, and then LISTEN to the results, until it SOUNDS right to his ears and meets his relevant safety criteria...... Then, and only then, does it get sold to customers.
*That*, my friend, is how the best audio equipment is made, and what Peter Walker should've done all those years ago with his sonically dreadful (in stock form) Quad IIs, but because he worshipped at the altar of measurements (as people like him often did), was too blinkered and arrogant to do so...!
However, perhaps 'adequate', to him, was enough? In my experience, it often is in audio with staunch objectivist types ;)
Marco.
Interesting points, all of them, but here's a thought about old Mr Walker:
Given the time span he was operating in, & given the market he was selling into, do you think he would have sold any more amplifiers than the many thousands that he did sell over the 18 years they were on the market, if they had sounded better?
Personally, I don't think he would have (& I don't particularly like the II amp).
In general I accept what you’ve written Marco and I have no doubt that in fact a great deal of Hi Fi component manufacturers do in fact listen to their products :)
However, the designer still has to have an element of repeatability to his/her design and if some amplifier designer is prepared to contribute to this thread stating that each amp he/she builds is built in isolation from the last unit built (ie none of the specifications of a previous build are used) and the final configuration isn’t measured and recorded then I’ll have to take their word for it.
What I believe happens is, they may indeed initially design to a specification and then fine tune by listening but the changes have to be recorded and repeatable (?)and unless the designer has a phenomenal aural memory, they will build to a written and measurable specification finally, even if that final spec was established by listening and recording the changes that gave the required improvement.
Despite your views regarding Peter Walker and Quad amps they have a very high audiophile reputation so building by measurement and specification does at least seem possible even if you personally don’t find the results pleasing ;)
I’m not sure the “best” audio components are bespoke built Marco. I wouldn’t argue that there are some very talented people involved in “bespoke” audio but I suggest the really large companies with their enormous resources tend to rule when it comes to quality audio reproduction. Bespoke is cool, you get something individual and possibly unique. If you’re lucky you get value because the small manufacturer doesn’t have corporate overheads etc. This doesn’t necessarily translate into best sounding available and I doubt very much if it applies at all to equipment using newer technologies.
If you are going to produce a load of one type of thing then this is how it has to work..Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Components are graded, you have different tolerance transistors (gain), capacitors & resistors etc (value +/-% of ideal) etc. As long as the components selected fall inside of the critical categories then there should be very little measurable or audible differences between each unit. 1% resistors kind of help here. Does someone honestly want to say that they can hear a difference between a 10K resistor & a 10K1 resistor in a circuit, come on..
Obviously there will be some on the margins (for what they are worth) that will be slightly better or worse than the unit that was initially listened to & put into production. The differences though should be pretty insignificant or there would be no production lines...
Excuse me, i'm on the lash :cool: As usual :eyebrows:
A good equipment example for this thread are Stan's DAC's. I'm sure Stan would be the first to agree that they are not as good as he could make them if money was no object, but then that would be missing the point entirely. Stan has cleverly found the middle ground and has produced a DAC that sounds great, costs very little, and the icing on the cake is that he is engaged with his customer base in the development of upgrade mods. His DAC's are as good as he can make them for the price and no one could argue that he doesn't know what his products are capable of :cool:
Hi Chris,Quote:
Interesting points, all of them, but here's a thought about old Mr Walker:
Given the time span he was operating in, & given the market he was selling into, do you think he would have sold any more amplifiers than the many thousands that he did sell over the 18 years they were on the market, if they had sounded better?
Personally, I don't think he would have (& I don't particularly like the II amp).
The answer is very unlikely, because he successfully built a respected reputation, and through that, succeeded to surround his products in an air of mystique, which people bought into, rather like Tim de Paravicini does now. It's a significant reason why vintage Quad gear fetches the prices it does now on eBay, and such like.
And going back to the old days, when people like the BBC start to use your products, then that again adds further kudos and desirability to the Quad brand name, therefore it goes beyond the equipment itself achieving ultimate audio performance. It's about creating a respected and desirable marque, mainly through an audio designer's perceived 'guru status', which people will buy into.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Peter Walker was a talented audio designer; superb products like the ESL57s, amongst others, are testament to that.
I simply think that, like many others of his mindset, brought up on strict scientific values, he took his eye off of the ball, as it were, from being too influenced by the validity of objective measurements when designing audio equipment, the sonic reproduction of which ultimately must satisfy the scrutiny of the human ear more than it does the readout on an oscilloscope.
Marco.
I wish you hadn’t done that Dave :doh:
For me too, and John Atkinson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereonow
Indeed, Dave. I'm glad you mentioned the Beresford DAC, because along with Anthony's amps, it's another case in point, in terms of the sonic advantages of equipment made by small, specialist manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by synsei
How much continual tweaking, measuring and listening do you think Stan carries out to acheive the sonic results his DACs give? Do you think that they would achieve such high sonic standards if he simply built them to a 'required specification' and then left it at that?
No chance!
He continually strives to achieve even greater excellence with his designs, which is what all the best audio designers do, and without doubt, *that* is the recipe for creating the best sounding equipment.
John, I'll get to your last post in a moment :)
Marco.
But in 1953, who was listening to amplifiers before they bought them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Not many of Quad's customers, I don't suppose.
Indeed, and that's why there was a lot of crap made then, as well as some truly outstanding stuff, because like you say, listening to equipment from both the perspective of the buyer and designer was, shall we say, 'unfashionable'. It's probably also a significant reason why Quad IIs sound how they do!
However, it's no coincidence, I feel, that those who did as much listening then as they did measuring, ended up both designing and owning the best sounding kit at the time ;)
Marco.
I think a lot of what you are talking about is much more directed at valve amps Marco, after all, you don't hear of people transistor rolling :eyebrows:
They are very much a different entity & each manufacturers product can differ by a much wider margin than any transistor. As i mentioned earlier, as long as you have a good design then components will have a minimal input to the sound quality as most components will be pretty well matched.
With valves you have all sorts of different versions, in comparison transistors are much more homogeneous, gain excepted..
Although what you say is true to a certain extent Mark, the same still applies albeit to a lesser degree with SS equipment. I will admit that it is probably easier to design a consistent mass-market SS product than one with valves, however the basic premise is the same whether your dealing with tubes or SS. Again, the Beresford DAC's are evidence of this... :cool:
Hi Mark,
I agree to an extent, as the behaviour of valve equipment is rather more 'organic', but there's still plenty of margin for fine-tuning the sonic performance of solid-state gear.
Testament to that fact, is the huge array (to my ears) of sonic signatures created by various SS pre and power amps, currently on the market. Try listening to amps from Naim and then to some from, say, Meridian, and you'll see where I'm coming from ;)
Anthony is well placed to comment on this issue, as he designs both valve and SS gear, as indeed for that matter, is Nick (lurcher). Therefore, as experienced audio designers, I shall ask them to offer their thoughts on the discussion :)
Marco.
Dave, if you can build stuff that is within 5% tolerence then it should all sound the same ;) I think say 50% tolerance might well make a diffrence, that'd be maybe 6Db, but 1%, having a laugh :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by synsei
It's down to the design & not the components at the end of the day.. Get it right & you'll be able to reproduce a good component without too much "trimming", or bu**er all...
You only need to introduce lots of adjustment if you can't get similar components that will bring the design into the spec you need or want ;)
Yes! Bias the bloody lot of them into class A though & you might not hear so much of a difference. I'd still prefer the low feedback version though, let it do it's thing with less restrictions :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I know we are going round in circles, been here before & all that :)
But you must take into account all the new readers to the site :eyebrows: So it all gets repeated once again & i'm only too happy..
Me too, and I agree. However, one can only judge the results of equipment that is being sold in the current marketplace, hence why I quoted examples of two SS amps, from different manufacturers, which to my ears sound poles apart..... Incidentally, one of which I know from experience will have been born from extensive subjective assessment ;)Quote:
Yes! Bias the bloody lot of them into class A though & you might not hear so much of a difference. I'd still prefer the low feedback version though, let it do it's thing with less restrictions...
Ditto!Quote:
I know we are going round in circles, been here before & all that :)
But you must take into account all the new readers to the site :eyebrows: So it all gets repeated once again & i'm only too happy..
Marco.
I’m going to have to disagree regarding the Beresford Dacs I’ve heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I haven’t noticed any sonic advantages over the mass produced Dacs in the same price range and if this is what people are going to cite as an example of “bespoke” product superiority then as far as I’m concerned its case not proven; not even close imo.
It would have been far better to have kept this general and not mentioned specific products, particularly products that feature heavily on this forum.
Fair enough, John, you're entitled to your opinion. May I ask what specification of Beresford DAC it was that you heard, and what is was you compared it to, particularly in terms of price?
One must remember what the Beresford sells for..... For me, it pisses all over any 'big name' DAC up to £700 or so, although I also very much like the new Rega DAC.
I don't use a Beresford, but I've heard some examples, and rate them, albeit not as highly as my own heavily modified Sony DAS-R1, but that occupies a different price point entirely!
I'm off now to reply to your earlier post :)
Marco.
I listened to the 7510 I believe it was titled, the first offering from Beresford when I first moved from vinyl to file.
I can’t remember the prices at the time but I also listened to the MF V-Dac, The HRT 11 basic, the Valab NOS Dac basic model and a kit Dac which I cant recal the details off atm.
I liked the sound of the Valab NOS Dac best overall using SPDIF but they weren’t particularly well made and there were then concerns about their reliability (small manufacturer struggling with quality issues)
However, I wanted to use USB believing that in time USB asynchronous data transfer would become the preferred connection method for the better Dacs to come.
The HRT gave the best USB performance even then (pre HRT 11)
I have now heard the Beresford Caiman in its standard form against the HRT 11+ and using USB the HRT is by far the better sounding Dac.
Its not that there is anything wrong with either of the Beresford models I’ve heard but imo their build quality leaves a lot to be desired and their sound is about what one would expect at their price point.
The Gatorized Caiman is a different kettle of fish entirely John (which is what I own), and having listened to most of the Caiman's competitors both below and slightly above its price point, the Caiman + Gator mod was easily the right choice for me. I guess it comes down to personal preference and the MK1 eardrum in the end ;)
We are getting slightly off topic however, my reason for bringing up the Caiman was to support the premise, not to 'Big Up' the product, although I'm perfectly willing to do that in the right thread :lol:
Hi John,
No, that's not what I'm saying happens at all. Of course the final configuration is used as the benchmark for all future designs. What I'm saying is that the best audio designers don't just settle for what measures well - that simply isn't good enough if equipment doesn't also sound superb.Quote:
However, the designer still has to have an element of repeatability to his/her design and if some amplifier designer is prepared to contribute to this thread stating that each amp he/she builds is built in isolation from the last unit built (ie none of the specifications of a previous build are used) and the final configuration isn’t measured and recorded then I’ll have to take their word for it.
Some will say that the two automatically go hand in hand, but that's not always the case, in my experience. I can think of plenty of kit that is claimed to measure superbly, yet sounds sonically inaccurate and 'lifeless', to my ears, based on how I know how real voices and instruments *should* sound. Basically, it fails at faithfully reproducing the source musical information.
Therefore, in order to determine whether equipment both measures well and sounds superb, BOTH objective and subjective assessment is mandatory during the design process. And as the latter is a variable process, no fixed 'objective design template' can exist in the world of the audio designer who continually strives for excellence.
Indeed, such a rigid and inflexible entity would be an anathema to someone who values the significant benefits of lateral thinking!
Basically, I don't think that they make music sound real, as their sonic signature is way too 'rose-tinted' and coloured for that. And to be honest, they give valve amps a bad name, because their 'pipe & slippers' sonic presentation panders to the popular misconception many people have of how valve amps sound, when the reality is properly designed ones sound nothing like that! :doh:Quote:
Despite your views regarding Peter Walker and Quad amps they have a very high audiophile reputation so building by measurement and specification does at least seem possible even if you personally don’t find the results pleasing ;)
I've already explained why I think vintage Quad amps have the following that they do :rolleyes:
Well of course there is no universally 'correct' way to build something, and so like mass-produced equipment, bespoke gear isn't always the best.Quote:
I’m not sure the “best” audio components are bespoke built Marco. I wouldn’t argue that there are some very talented people involved in “bespoke” audio but I suggest the really large companies with their enormous resources tend to rule when it comes to quality audio reproduction. Bespoke is cool, you get something individual and possibly unique. If you’re lucky you get value because the small manufacturer doesn’t have corporate overheads etc. This doesn’t necessarily translate into best sounding available and I doubt very much if it applies at all to equipment using newer technologies.
However, I believe that when bespoke equipment is designed successfully by someone who really knows what they are doing, usually a small, specialist manufacturer, the results are more often than not sonically superior to what is achieved by 'big name' manufacturers when mass-producing their equipment.
Let's examine my system as an example....
Going by what you say, huge companies like National Panasonic and Sony should have the technical wherewithal to ensure that their finished products perform to a very high standard, not achievable by a 'bespoke equipment bodger' - and they do perform to a very high standard.
But that didn't stop people like Mike New and Paul Hynes from transforming and improving the performance of my SL-1210 with their superb products, or Mark Bartlett, of Audiocom International, similarly transforming the performance of my Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, with his judicious mods, did it? ;)
The point I'm making is that with bespoke products one can either design from scratch on that basis, or judiciously modify equipment which is already good and turn it into something really special that sonically punches way above its 'status', and which offers performance that isn't available on the mainstream marketplace at its particular price point.
Those are the significant advantages of bespoke building and/or judiciously modifying already good equipment.
And don't get me started on new technologies used in equipment somehow automatically guaranteeing superior sonic performance, as I'm afraid, to date that notion hasn't been conclusively proven to my ears... In terms of DAC chips, as far as I'm concerned, properly implemented good old TDA-1541s take some beating!
Marco.
I was going to write a dissertation but I then realised that I couldn't be bothered. The best HiFi equipment is designed by those who demonstrate both exceptional technical ability and a great passion for and understanding of, music. Such designers are more likely provide the customer with equipment that will consistently excel at reproducing music to a high standard. In the main, although not exclusively, these designers tend to own, or are employed by, smaller manufacturers... :thumbsup:
That's probably the biggest factor, together with component choice. The fact is, few amps are class A because of the inefficiency and heat output, in fact even some that claim to be class A cannot be throughout their power band because they don't have enough heatsink!Quote:
Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant
As soon as you get into class B or AB you start to get the variations: how well is crossover distortion handled, how much feedback is applied locally and overall. Naim's topology (used to be quasi-complementary push pull) won't be the same as Meridian's. After that, capacitor choices make a difference. You can see how the design market for ss designs has taken many different paths, and that's before we look at sliding bias, class D, class T etc.
+1Quote:
The best HiFi equipment is designed by those who demonstrate both exceptional technical ability and a great passion for and understanding of, music. Such designers are more likely provide the customer with equipment that will consistently excel at reproducing music to a high standard. In the main, although not exclusively, these designers tend to own, or are employed by, smaller manufacturers...
Nail > head, dude! :clap: :clap:
And their passion and *genuine* understanding of music is what gives them the ability to design, and in the final analysis, voice equipment by ear, which excels at accurately reproducing the complexities of recorded music, in a way which is not attainable by those worshipping solely at the altar of measurements.
Marco.
My own take is that the difference between Naim and Meridian is easily measurable and in fact the "different" distortion performance of CB and current Naim is there for anyone interested to see (not in terms of quantity, but where the harmonics lie).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
One range of once hideously expensive amps (but now almost affordable) I'd love to hear again is the late 90's Krell FPB series, which were so unlike their harsh early 90's forebears and had effortless power and control, even into fairly sensitive speakers and at low volume levels. One range that was worth reviewing IMO..
P.S. The current trend for very low damping factor (less control over the speakers) and porty-bass, low impedance speakers isn't really compatible IMO either, although amps with extremely high damping can sound too lean and "bright" on some well damped (in the bass) speakers. All part of the hobby-fun aspect of music reproduction at home :)
I completely agree, but that's a different thing from designing amps from the ground up believing that once they measure well, it's a case of 'job done'. The fact is, measurements only tell part of the story. For the other part, one has to listen.Quote:
My own take is that the difference between Naim and Meridian is easily measurable and in fact the "different" distortion performance of CB and current Naim is there for anyone interested to see (not in terms of quantity, but where the harmonics lie).
Again, I completely agree. Have you also heard vintage Krell amps from the 1970s?Quote:
One range of once hideously expensive amps (but now almost affordable) I'd love to hear again is the late 90's Krell FPB series, which were so unlike their harsh early 90's forebears and had effortless power and control, even into fairly sensitive speakers and at low volume levels. One range that was worth reviewing IMO..
They're almost valve-like in their sonic presentation (!) - and by that I mean valves done well. It's a totally different ball-game to the stark sounding and soulless crap that Krell make today, designed to give a stiffy to dimwits who judge amps mainly by how my watts they produce!! :rolleyes:
One wonders again, if when the vintage Krell amps were designed, that there was as much listening done by designers as measuring.........
It's the same with CB Naim, in terms of how 'valve-like' it sounds compared to the amps that Naim produce now.
Can you detect a trend here? ;)
Marco.
CB Naims NEVER sounded valve like :lol: - Oh hang on a minute, you had 135's didn't you and these, and the little nait, clipped a lot more gently than the CB160, 250 and the horrid 110 and early 140 - I had countless samples through my hands, some for a couple of months at a time powered 24/7, so I think I can speak reliably here :eek:
Please also bear in mind that the UK greats from the 50's - Arthur Radford and Peter Walker ONLY listened for faults apparently - i.e. through the amp, not to it , not to fine-tune their designs with fancy caps or somesuch. Didn't do them any harm, did it :) I suppose this "instinct" for a good all round design is something special though, as many others have tried and failed.
Actually, I'd love Anthony to chip in here if he's able, as he works with modern-conceived valve designs, seems to confirm my non-engineer comments to an extent.
Re early krells? Oh yes indeedy, I've heard most Krells from the KSA50 and 100 (including a lovely pair of KMA100's I should have bought at the price offered over twenty years ago - another error :(). Jimmy had three KSA50's driving his early active 'briks, and rather wonderful they sounded too :) I also favoured the KSA80, which was the last of that era to be classed as a good all-rounder. Krell went huge and harsh for a while before the variable-bias ones brought the sonics back to earth - IMO of course. The 300 integrated was a bit bright, but lightning quick in a cleaned-up CB Naim sense and I rather admired the 400 integrated, finding it rather better than a typical "Olive" Naim pre-power-supply at around £3K, or a 112/180 which I think cost much the same from memory. Didn't stop us selling Naims though, as the Krell was a bottom model integrated, and distrusted accordingly ;)
P.S. Totally off-topic and I unreservedly apologise, but my posts do seem to come over as mini-lectures, possibly with a very rigid and fixed point of view. In reality, I do try to be as open minded as possible, but the way I have with personal experiences influencing my outlook may tend to make me come across as patronising and/or blinkered - I'm thinking of the whole vinyl/CD/master recording thing which I keep going back to at times and which I've no intention of doing here-now... My experiences with Krell are mine, in the dealerships I've worked in and in client's/friends homes too, so hopefully are fair and honest, with little personal bias..
Actually, the P.S. above may link back to the OP, in that when reading certain influential reviewer's prose, you get to know their style of writing. Martin Colloms obviously knew/knows how important he was and possibly still is as reviewer and consultant for so many products, but if he didn't like a product much, you always got to know "in between the lines." As for Ken Kessler, he reminds me of the late LJK Setright, a reviewer of cars so skilled at saying little over several pages.. KK plays to his appreciative audience and seems to love the Ab Sounds portfolio ;) I wonder why Levinson's gear (or Path Premier in general?) was rarely reviewed in HFN???????
Enough from me. Apologies all once again :dummy:
Dave, there really is no need for you to apologize for the manner of your posts, you draw on your vast experience and expertise to illustrate your points of view. I'm sure I speak for us all when I say that your posts are meaningful and incisive. I for one respect your insightful musings. :respect:
I know why Mark Levinson (Madrigal) products weren't reviewed in Hi-Fi News despite them being tested in every other quality magazine on the Planet..:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
Oh good. That helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by hifi_dave
Best not to air the probable reason why on a public forum though Howard :)
To Dave (Synsei), thanks for the support. It's just that when one (me) types something, it can come out as a definite FACT, i.e. factual as I see or saw it at the time. It's just that when I was told I couldn't show Marco anything (in regards to setting up a dem to show what I meant in the post concerned) it started to possibly escalate again and I've been soul-searching for a way in which to better explain what I mean. Trouble is, I can't and the bad-penny syndrome currently means I can't sit back and take a break either, so just plough on through until I have other things to do with my time, like earn some money for instance.....
Anyway, my favourite reviews were from the long defunct "HiFi Sound" magazine from the late 60's to mid 70's or so, before it became absorbed into another mag (I forget which one). There were articles written with great affection and humour for the subject at hand, plenty of technical stuff but never forgetting what a bit of audio kit was actually for. Back in those days, I remember many a transistor amp being full of crossover distortion, one of the nastiest of all the "THD" style distortions I felt and the other distortion artifacts that are taken fully for granted nowadays were only just being discovered by these mags.
Did Mark Levinson pull Ken Kessler's beard?Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
:lolsign: Joe :clapclapclap:
Another vote for your insights here, Dave. Don't stop posting!
hi All,
First of all concerning Peter walker and his design talent, well he was in my opinion a very talented designer, unfortunetly [IMHO] he will be remembered for certain products that were shall we say,,,NOT his highest Achievent.
The Quad 2 for example, if you examine the circuit you will see that it is quite an acheivment for its time, however, not [again IMHO] for the right reasons, ie; sonics, what peter managed to acheive was a fully push-pull circuit using only 2 pentodes [EF86] and two Tetrodes KT66] now, when you examine the circuit in more depth you will see one of its biggest failings by todays standard, power output capability. The KT66 in say, a GEC push-pull circuit is easily capable of producing 25 watt, in the Quad 2 you get 14/15 watt, [dependant on how good the output transformer was that day] One of the reasons for that is down to the unique driver circuit used, [the circuit is available to look at else where for anyone who wants to study it] it needed to produce a large amount of voltage gain hence pentodes, however, they also needed a large amount of voltage to drive those to get full output swing from the output stage,There are are also other issues with this circuit design that concern me, however, they have been documemted else where and lifes too short to go over it here, ultimately this design has serious compromises by today,s standards, ie; restricted bandwidth due to the demands made of the limited components in the circuit, and also its requirements from any other preamp except its own, also its power output limitations, even after peter's rather [again] unique way of using a winding in the output transformer partialy to recycle some of the energy that would normaly be lost in a more conventional bias circuit of the day.
As you can probably tell i am not the Quad 2's biggest fan, However, i admire the design for what it did acheive, and of course there are many satisfied users world wide who rate them highly, However, when you listen to another design of the day in comparison, the Stereo 20 for instance, you will wonder how come this little amp can still sound reletivily modern by todays standards, compared to the more shall we say, pipe and slippers sound of the Quad 2, To Answer that you will have to look and compare their circuit designs and thus compare the compromises of both.
Now, my own view on some of what has been written here, well, its true that mainstream manufacturers have to adere to certain criteria, when designing and producing a product, and there are of course ways of aquiring certain repeatable sonic signatures, however, you will find even in these circumstances one or two out of say every 100 units will have a sonic signature that is markedly better than the other 98. [ I know this very well from dealing with high profile guitarists who have two seemingly identical amplifiers, however, one is their number 1 amp, the other is barely used and is kept only as a back up] now, you can say that thats great for those lucky 2 out of every 100, but what about those other 98 ???
That is where bespoke comes into its own, yes, this route costs the consumer more in the short term, but this helps the designer in two main ways, 1] having more money to play with means more can be spent on bespoke layouts of circuitry and components caseworks etc. 2] because bespoke items demand a higher price tag, the designer has more time to spend on the design itself and the final testing and voicing of the units to make absolutely sure the customer gets what he wants,or has heard from a similar unit elsewhere.
Anthony,TD...