NuForce DDA-100 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 75 Old 01-05-2013, 07:45 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
mraub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I've been listening to this amp for a few days now with a pair of Golden Ear Triton 2's and I'm very impressed, and I'm basically from the "all amps sound the same" school of thought. Though it could be nothing more than temporary infatuation with a new toy, my impression is that this amp offers higher clarity than the amp i was using before, an Emotiva UPA-200.

Absolute Sound gave this amp a glowing review and named it the product of the year in the budget amp category. Anyone else here tried this new amp yet?

MIKE

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
--H. L. Mencken
mraub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 75 Old 01-05-2013, 10:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,270
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 253
If you think all amplifiers sound the same, then you are obviously describing something that is impossible.

I have been listening to sound systems, including amplifiers, for 50 years, and I think the idea that all amplifers sound the same is as ridiculous as saying that all automobiles drive and perform the same, or all wines taste the same. Differences in performance are huge and can easily be demonstrated. I hear those differences quite easily. One amplifier will make a violin painful to listen to, while another will make it sound like it actually sounded when it was recorded...beautiful.

There are some people that will tell you that Trader Joe's $2 wine tastes just like a $50 bottle of Robert Mondavi Cabernet. (they are probably the same people who swear that all amplifiers sound the same). Maybe it really does sound/taste the same to them; we shouldn't let that limit OUR ability to appreciate the finer things in life.

Substitute a $300 Yamaha or Pioneer HT receiver for the amplifier you have, and if you can't hear the difference you have a severe hearing loss and should consult with an audiologist. That is my opinion.
commsysman is offline  
post #3 of 75 Old 01-05-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 302
Quote:
Though it could be nothing more than temporary infatuation with a new toy
This happens to me every time I get a new amp. Match output levels, put a cloth over them, and the differences always disappear.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #4 of 75 Old 01-06-2013, 11:11 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
mraub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
You may be right. The blind testing i've seen doesn't give much support for the need of expensive amplifiers. Fortunately the Nuforce is cheap. The Nuforce did let me get rid of the DAC, plus the thing is so tiny I hauled my audio rack to the basement and just put the Nuforce on a shelf in a end table. The amp and a Squeezebox Touch are the only electronics in the system now (not counting the Triton's built-in subwoofer).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

This happens to me every time I get a new amp. Match output levels, put a cloth over them, and the differences always disappear.

MIKE

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
--H. L. Mencken
mraub is offline  
post #5 of 75 Old 01-06-2013, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Knucklehead90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: State of Confusion - 98823
Posts: 7,367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

If you think all amplifiers sound the same, then you are obviously describing something that is impossible.
I have been listening to sound systems, including amplifiers, for 50 years, and I think the idea that all amplifers sound the same is as ridiculous as saying that all automobiles drive and perform the same, or all wines taste the same. Differences in performance are huge and can easily be demonstrated. I hear those differences quite easily. One amplifier will make a violin painful to listen to, while another will make it sound like it actually sounded when it was recorded...beautiful.
There are some people that will tell you that Trader Joe's $2 wine tastes just like a $50 bottle of Robert Mondavi Cabernet. (they are probably the same people who swear that all amplifiers sound the same). Maybe it really does sound/taste the same to them; we shouldn't let that limit OUR ability to appreciate the finer things in life.
Substitute a $300 Yamaha or Pioneer HT receiver for the amplifier you have, and if you can't hear the difference you have a severe hearing loss and should consult with an audiologist. That is my opinion.

I can't figure out why this guy has yet to give his money away. Or why setups like this are always so difficult to tell one setup from another. Its easy to sit at a computer keyboard and tell us how easy it is to tell audio gear apart - its another to be able to actually tell that gear apart.

When all else fails - RTFM!

♫♫♫ Two Channel Rules! ♫♫♫

GO SEAHAWKS!!!
Knucklehead90 is offline  
post #6 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
mraub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I can't imagine how good the DDA-100 would sound if I connected it to the mains with the $7200 power cord Absolute Sound recommends. Or made sure my electricity was generated by a hydroelectric generator station, to insure an always liquid sound.

I know reasonably intelligent people who pay $20,000+ for wristwatches that don't keep time any more accurately than a $20 Timex. I guess we all have our blind spots in rational behavior. Some people just don't recognize that fact.

MIKE

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
--H. L. Mencken
mraub is offline  
post #7 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 08:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraub View Post

I've been listening to this amp for a few days now with a pair of Golden Ear Triton 2's and I'm very impressed, and I'm basically from the "all amps sound the same" school of thought. Though it could be nothing more than temporary infatuation with a new toy, my impression is that this amp offers higher clarity than the amp i was using before, an Emotiva UPA-200.

Absolute Sound gave this amp a glowing review and named it the product of the year in the budget amp category. Anyone else here tried this new amp yet?

From a measurements standpoint, it is not the least bit exceptional:



Just for grins here is a comparable plot from a Crown so-called PA amplifier that some people like to look down their noses at:

arnyk is offline  
post #8 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Knucklehead90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: State of Confusion - 98823
Posts: 7,367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Thanks for posting that Crown chart Arny.
I'm sitting here listening to my 2 channel setup - powered by one of those Crown amps! The XLS1500 is an amazing amp. It weighs only 11 pounds and has more power than any amp I've ever owned - I turned the volume wayyyy up trying to clip the amp - it never clipped. And it sounds just like all the other amps I've ever owned! With a variable speed fan to keep it cool - and I've yet to hear - only seen it slowly come on a few times during a movie but is very quiet - unlike the Behringer E1500 I once owned. I don't think I'm going back to those heavy Emotiva amps I've owned previously either. My 65 year old bad back can't take that.

When all else fails - RTFM!

♫♫♫ Two Channel Rules! ♫♫♫

GO SEAHAWKS!!!
Knucklehead90 is offline  
post #9 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 11:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraub View Post


I know reasonably intelligent people who pay $20,000+ for wristwatches that don't keep time any more accurately than a $20 Timex. I guess we all have our blind spots in rational behavior. Some people just don't recognize that fact.

One point being that no Rolex user has ever told me that his Rolex is mind-blowingly more accurate than my Casio. The magic cable, amplifier, and DAC people tell me that all of the time. They tell me that they are sorry that I lack the taste and discretion that it takes to appreciate the improved sound quality of their audio jewelry.
arnyk is offline  
post #10 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 11:59 AM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I would like to be rational... but not at the expense of denying my own experiences. BTW - while some of this post is tongue in cheek, and trying to keep things light - I am trying to understand where other people are coming from, and I have no intention to disrespect where people are coming from. Variety is the spice of life, and I would like to celebrate our differences rather than feel threatened by them.

I too suffer from the delusion that I can hear differences between some amplifiers, and I believe that there is a bit of a consensus that my preference is for high distortion. I like the sound of my set 300B tube amp. I also believe that I can hear the differences between some SS amps - though they are less obvious to me. My HK sounded warmer and more relaxed to me than my Yammie receiver with def tech speakers. Rightly or wrongly, I attributed that to the HK having a bit more power, higher current, ability to drive 4 Ohm speakers compared to the Yammie's 6. The Def Techs apparently dip down to 3.9 Ohm around 40 - 45 Hz. A CD changer that replaced a different brand CD changer never sounded quite as 'open' as the first one. At the time In decided that must be an illusion, because the specs were nearly identical. I replaced a pair of cans that I gave to my son with an identical pair. I still miss the originals, 6 months later, break in is not a factor anymore. (poor memory may be a huge factor) I know some people reject the idea of break-in - but there are test numbers on driver extension that would support the notion of mechanical break-in. And my 300B sounds better after 2 hours than after 30 minutes than after 5 minutes than right at start-up... to me.
I remain unconvinced that we can measure all aspects of the sound we hear through a THD+noise figure. A sports truck and a low powered sporty car may pose the same numbers for acceleration, deceleration and road holding, but they won't drive the same because of the other performance factors, e.g. mass, center of gravity or sidewall flex.
I have read a number of Arnyk's posts, and clearly arnyk has a lot of experience in the field, a clear and analytical mind, and the capacity to communicate clearly. I respect and appreciate his point of view - but my point of hearing tells me something different. I am struggling to reconcile the test figures with the experience. Perhaps some day I will obtain some equipment that will permit me to get a disinterested party to assist me in completing a true double blind test - the parameters of that are pretty daunting. In the meantime I will sit and wonder if the people who state that they have completed a double blind test are not themselves subject to having set up an experiment that would encourage an expected outcome.
In the late 80s I had bought the Ultimate Source: A lower end Sony CDP. Sony, the co-developer of the format with Philips. What could be better. Well, my buddy's turntable that we connected to my system sounded better. I really did not want that result. Fortunately I could rationalize that at least the CD player had no pops, surface noise and infinitesimal Wow&Flutter (They still provided W&F numbers for CD players at that time smile.gif) But in all honesty the TT sounded better.
So what do I do, arnyk, mraub or knucklehead? Make a rational decision that the equipment with lower THD&N figures IS better, regardless of how it sounds to me? And then learn to appreciated the correctness of the sound reproduction, regardless of my delusion that I hear grain, a narrower, shallower sound stage, and a veiling of clarity in the knowledge that the figures tell me that this is the correct way to hear the music? That kind of rationality just does not seem logical to me, when my objective is to enjoy the music.
So I have 2 questions:
1. Is it possible that we hear sound differently? Is it possible that the Inuit recognize 30 or more different types of snow where we only recognize 4 or 5? We should be seeing the same damn snow if we are in the same location at the same time. Personally I don't want to see any snow, but that is beside the point.
2. Is it possible that we do not measure all of the variables that pertain to our experience of the sound.
Thanks in advance for giving this your thought.
2obed is offline  
post #11 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post


I too suffer from the delusion that I can hear differences between some amplifiers, and I believe that there is a bit of a consensus that my preference is for high distortion. I like the sound of my SET 300B tube amp.

Just another irritating repetition of the false claim that "...all people of the scientific persuasion believe that all amplifiers sound the same...."

I can write 1,000 times and probably have that some amplifiers are designed and built to sound different and if you go far enough down that road you are successful.

Science predicts that, too.

I suspect that you know as well as I do that your 300B SET was intentionally designed to have enough distortion to actually sound different, and not surprizingly to anybody with brain, it does!

The post quoted above sounds like someone actually believes that there is some kind of surprise.

Yawn!
arnyk is offline  
post #12 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 302
Quote:
1. Is it possible that we hear sound differently?
No, we all work pretty much the same. No two people have identical sensitivities, and some sensitivities can be enhanced with (the right kind of) training. But scientists have been studying human hearing for a century and a half or so, and we have a pretty good understanding of its limits. People who claim to hear differences outside those limits are essentially claiming to have superhuman powers.
Quote:
2. Is it possible that we do not measure all of the variables that pertain to our experience of the sound.
Anything is possible, but there is no evidence that this is so. Indeed, there are mountains of evidence against it. Whenever we do carefully controlled listening tests, we find that audibility is easily explained by available measurements. If our measurements were inadequate, this would not be so.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #13 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 04:55 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knucklehead90 View Post

I can't figure out why this guy has yet to give his money away. Or why setups like this are always so difficult to tell one setup from another. Its easy to sit at a computer keyboard and tell us how easy it is to tell audio gear apart - its another to be able to actually tell that gear apart.
You know what, commsysman will post the same claim all over again in couple weeks as he has been for over a year no matter what we tell / ask him.
diomania is offline  
post #14 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 04:59 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

I remain unconvinced that we can measure all aspects of the sound we hear through a THD+noise figure.
What did you read or hear regarding human's auditory system and measuring devices? I'm curious to find out what's there that can be heard by us but not measurable.
diomania is offline  
post #15 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 07:51 PM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Just another irritating repetition of the false claim that "...all people of the scientific persuasion believe that all amplifiers sound the same...."
I can write 1,000 times and probably have that some amplifiers are designed and built to sound different and if you go far enough down that road you are successful.
Science predicts that, too.
I suspect that you know as well as I do that your 300B SET was intentionally designed to have enough distortion to actually sound different, and not surprizingly to anybody with brain, it does!
The post quoted above sounds like someone actually believes that there is some kind of surprise.
Yawn!
I appear to have exceeded your attention span.
Adding rudeness to a strawman argument does not make it more convincing.
2obed is offline  
post #16 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 08:07 PM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

No, we all work pretty much the same. No two people have identical sensitivities, and some sensitivities can be enhanced with (the right kind of) training. But scientists have been studying human hearing for a century and a half or so, and we have a pretty good understanding of its limits. People who claim to hear differences outside those limits are essentially claiming to have superhuman powers.
Anything is possible, but there is no evidence that this is so. Indeed, there are mountains of evidence against it. Whenever we do carefully controlled listening tests, we find that audibility is easily explained by available measurements. If our measurements were inadequate, this would not be so.
Thanks for your thoughts.
When I read stereophile some 20 years ago I had a distinct impression that the writers were claiming superhuman powers - they claimed to hear what was beyond measurement. I stopped reading the mag. Now I am not so sure - there appear to be qualitative differences. Perhaps these are just deviances from neutrality. Perhaps the deviances evoke emotional responses based on something in our personal history. So I am nor suggesting anything supernatural or superhuman. Perhaps you are correct, and scientists and technologists perfectly understand the measurable parameters. Then the keys would be achieving the closest possible approach to perfect neutrality and marketing. I saw the link to the blind test of the cheap and high end systems. Food for thought... And I like saving money smile.gif
2obed is offline  
post #17 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 08:11 PM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

You know what, commsysman will post the same claim all over again in couple weeks as he has been for over a year no matter what we tell / ask him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

You know what, commsysman will post the same claim all over again in couple weeks as he has been for over a year no matter what we tell / ask him.
Thanks diomania, I could only access the link to 'this system' but that was a good read. I think I will need to do some good double blind tests at some point. Difficult to set up properly though...
2obed is offline  
post #18 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 08:41 PM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What did you read or hear regarding human's auditory system and measuring devices? I'm curious to find out what's there that can be heard by us but not measurable.
My statement was not about our ability to measure the auditory system, but about the validity of using THD&N as the complete expression of what we hear / sound reproduction of a system. For example, there is an understanding that odd and higher order harmonic distortion is less pleasing to the human ear than 2nd order harmonic distortion. (I rightly or wrongly accepted this as the reason why tube amplification seemed more pleasing to me than the SS I was using.) I am a bit of a Luddite, and I have no great understanding of the technical aspects of sound or sound reproduction. I got an RCA MP3 player some 8 years ago, and it sounded veiled to me. Then I listened to an iPod, and heard pretty much the same sound. I ascribed is to the compressed format - until I heard an iPod classic (or something like that) and heard compressed format music that sounded much more pleasant to me. The veil was gone. Some research indicated that an 'audiophile quality' DAC was used. So I ascribed the difference to the DAC and decided that perhaps I needed to investigate the higher end sound beyond upgrading speakers. Who knows, there is some convincing reading out there that it is all in our minds (provided we meet a certain level of fidelity / electrical and electronic minimum standards.) I have only been at this hobby for 4 years, there is lots left to learn. Including learning about these forums, where a philosophical approach seems less important at times than agreeing with the right person.
I do not claim to have an answer. I wish to keep an open mind. I like exploring, and I like challenging myself to be honest - although that honesty thing can be painful at times. I am suspicious of simple answers and hope to maintain some healthy skepticism. Cheers.
2obed is offline  
post #19 of 75 Old 01-07-2013, 10:40 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

but about the validity of using THD&N as the complete expression of what we hear / sound reproduction of a system.
Those aren't all. There is frequency response, harmonic signature to name couple more.
Quote:
For example, there is an understanding that odd and higher order harmonic distortion is less pleasing to the human ear than 2nd order harmonic distortion. (I rightly or wrongly accepted this as the reason why tube amplification seemed more pleasing to me than the SS I was using.)
Not just any tube amp but single ended triode (SET). There is also solid state single ended amp too (Pass Labs amp).
Quote:
I am a bit of a Luddite, and I have no great understanding of the technical aspects of sound or sound reproduction. I got an RCA MP3 player some 8 years ago, and it sounded veiled to me. Then I listened to an iPod, and heard pretty much the same sound. I ascribed is to the compressed format - until I heard an iPod classic (or something like that) and heard compressed format music that sounded much more pleasant to me. The veil was gone. Some research indicated that an 'audiophile quality' DAC was used. So I ascribed the difference to the DAC and decided that perhaps I needed to investigate the higher end sound beyond upgrading speakers. Who knows, there is some convincing reading out there that it is all in our minds (provided we meet a certain level of fidelity / electrical and electronic minimum standards.) I have only been at this hobby for 4 years, there is lots left to learn. Including learning about these forums, where a philosophical approach seems less important at times than agreeing with the right person.
I do not claim to have an answer. I wish to keep an open mind. I like exploring, and I like challenging myself to be honest - although that honesty thing can be painful at times. I am suspicious of simple answers and hope to maintain some healthy skepticism. Cheers.
Try this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
diomania is offline  
post #20 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 03:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What did you read or hear regarding human's auditory system and measuring devices? I'm curious to find out what's there that can be heard by us but not measurable.

Well I never seen any measurements for perceived soundstage depth or how natural a female vocalist may sound for example. Yet these are very important factors in my enjoyment of music though.

On a similar but different note, I once met an a astronomer called Stephen O'Meara. He had made many visual observations and discoveries of things like the rotation period of Uranus and the spokes on Saturn's rings. Though none in the professional astronomy establishment believed him and dismissed his findings because all of their fancy equipment at the time hadn't revealed such information. It was arrogant of the scientific community to dismiss someone's visual observations simply because their own cameras and measuring devices failed to reveal such detail.

It wasn't until space probes actually flew out to the planets and "discovered" what Stephen had already been reporting... http://youtu.be/nkArqtto3m0

Moral of the story... don't be so arrogant as to dismiss something simply because science hasn't discovered/measured it yet.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #21 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 05:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What did you read or hear regarding human's auditory system and measuring devices? I'm curious to find out what's there that can be heard by us but not measurable.

Well I never seen any measurements for perceived soundstage depth or how natural a female vocalist may sound for example. Yet these are very important factors in my enjoyment of music though.

While it is true that perceived soundstage depth or how natural a female vocalist sound are not standard AES measurements, standard amplifier measurements actually give us all of the insight into that we might need.

Soundstage depth or natural a female vocalist sound are properties of the original recording. If the original recording is not reproduced with a high level of accuracy, then soundstage depth or natural a female vocalist sound will very likely be lost or reduced. So the discussion then becomes a discussion of sonic accuracy, which affects all audible recording properties, just not the two you picked. Standard amplifier measurements address the entire issue of sonic accuracy, not just few subjective features that you may be most interested in today.

Quote:
On a similar but different note, I once met an a astronomer called Stephen O'Meara. He had made many visual observations and discoveries of things like the rotation period of Uranus and the spokes on Saturn's rings. Though none in the professional astronomy establishment believed him and dismissed his findings because all of their fancy equipment of the time hadn't revealed such information. It was arrogant of the scientific community to dismiss someone's visual observations simply because their own cameras and measuring devices failed to reveal such detail.

I don't know what you are talking about. I googled Stephen O'Meara astronomer and found a rich collection of widely recognized accomplishments, pulications in recognized journals and accolades. He may have been dismissed at one time, but that time seems to have passed.
Quote:
It wasn't until space probes actually flew out to the planets and "discovered" what Stephen had already been reporting... http://youtu.be/nkArqtto3m0

Moral of the story... don't be so arrogant as to dismiss something simply because science hasn't discovered/measured it yet.

The above comments suggest to me that you may not fully appreciate how people respond to information that differs from what they currently believe, even though your own writings may show evidence of exactly the same thing. The basic technology relating to accurate sound quality was mostly developed during the 1930s, but audiophiles didn't start basing their purchasing habits on that knowledge until 30 or more years later. Much of the information I am describing is based on that and additional findings from the 1970s through the 1990s. It is not secret that there is resistance to it among many audiophiles to this day.

The post I'm responding to can be interpreted as being critical or dismissive of information that many audiophiles are as yet unaware of. Yet virtually everything that I talk about is based on recognized science going back 10-50 years. Audiophile publications are regrettably not the best source of information about these things, because many of them seem to be dominated by the needs of the equipment sales channel.
arnyk is offline  
post #22 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 05:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What did you read or hear regarding human's auditory system and measuring devices? I'm curious to find out what's there that can be heard by us but not measurable.
My statement was not about our ability to measure the auditory system, but about the validity of using THD&N as the complete expression of what we hear / sound reproduction of a system.

As has been pointed out, THD&N are not the complete expression of what we hear, and if you had a correct understanding of equipment specifications you'd know better. Every even semi-complete amplifier spec sheet and published test report contains information about frequency response and dynamic range as well.

Information theory has said for about 80 years that the information content of a signal is fully described by its bandwidth (frequency & phase response) and dynamic range (THD+N). No more, no less. Every audio device that can be shown to change the sound quality of recordings played through can be shown to fail to do both of these simple things well. We have fairly complete information about what kind of numbers for these measurements are required for sonic accuracy, or exact and indistinguishable sound as compared to the source recording.
Quote:
For example, there is an understanding that odd and higher order harmonic distortion is less pleasing to the human ear than 2nd order harmonic distortion.

There is a far more relevant understanding that if THD is less than some readily achievable number, the human ear does not notice it in any way. There are findings of the science of psychoacoustics that explain why higher order nonlinear distortion is more critical. There are other findings that explain why even low order nonlinear distoriton is repulsive to most listeners. There are no significant mysteries here!
Quote:
(I rightly or wrongly accepted this as the reason why tube amplification seemed more pleasing to me than the SS I was using.)

There are other colorations of tubed gear that may apply and their effects are well known and well understood as well.
Quote:
I am a bit of a Luddite, and I have no great understanding of the technical aspects of sound or sound reproduction.

You've got options. Among them is accepting what people with a lot of experience and education in this area say.
Quote:
I got an RCA MP3 player some 8 years ago, and it sounded veiled to me. Then I listened to an iPod, and heard pretty much the same sound. I ascribed is to the compressed format - until I heard an iPod classic (or something like that) and heard compressed format music that sounded much more pleasant to me. The veil was gone.

It is known that many compressed files that show up on portable players are produced under highly substandard conditions. It is also well known that given a good set of acoustic reproducers (headphones or earphones or attachment to a good stereo system) most iPods perform as well as a very good CD player.
Quote:
Some research indicated that an 'audiophile quality' DAC was used. So I ascribed the difference to the DAC and decided that perhaps I needed to investigate the higher end sound beyond upgrading speakers.

It doesn't sound to me like your evaluations were exactly high science. I know what happens when you look at the better portable digital players (some of which can be obtained very economically) with good science. They don't need an external DAC.
Quote:
Who knows,

Many people.
Quote:
there is some convincing reading out there that it is all in our minds (provided we meet a certain level of fidelity / electrical and electronic minimum standards.)

if you want to understand what is in our minds as regards to the enjoyment of music, a little light reading would be "This Is Your Brain On Music". You can Google it up at many booksellers including Amazon. Cheaper by far than any real world audio component you are ever likely to buy, but very informative about how and why you enjoy music.
Quote:
I have only been at this hobby for 4 years, there is lots left to learn.

For me it is 58 years and of course there is still a lot for me to learn. But, along the way I've found a few things out. ;-)
Quote:
Including learning about these forums, where a philosophical approach seems less important at times than agreeing with the right person.
I do not claim to have an answer. I wish to keep an open mind. I like exploring, and I like challenging myself to be honest - although that honesty thing can be painful at times. I am suspicious of simple answers and hope to maintain some healthy skepticism. Cheers.

So far I think you've only actually encountered simple answers. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #23 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:13 AM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Those aren't all. There is frequency response, harmonic signature to name couple more.
Not just any tube amp but single ended triode (SET). There is also solid state single ended amp too (Pass Labs amp).
Try this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Thanks again, Diomania, I will check out the video. 6Moons has had a lot of positive feedback on the Nelson Pass designs. More to investigate!!
2obed is offline  
post #24 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:20 AM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Well I never seen any measurements for perceived soundstage depth or how natural a female vocalist may sound for example. Yet these are very important factors in my enjoyment of music though.
On a similar but different note, I once met an a astronomer called Stephen O'Meara. He had made many visual observations and discoveries of things like the rotation period of Uranus and the spokes on Saturn's rings. Though none in the professional astronomy establishment believed him and dismissed his findings because all of their fancy equipment of the time hadn't revealed such information. I was arrogant of the scientific community to dismiss someone's visual observations simply because their own cameras and measuring devices failed to reveal such detail.
It wasn't until space probes actually flew out to the planets and "discovered" what Stephen had already been reporting... http://youtu.be/nkArqtto3m0
Moral of the story... don't be so arrogant as to dismiss something simply because science hasn't discovered/measured it yet.
Indeed, Kiwi. The earth was not always believe to be round. Cutting edge scientists have become a lot more humble in reporting their findings. In the 70s I regularly heard them proclaim: "Then we thought... Now we know..." I don't hear that anymore. Not from scientists, anyway.
2obed is offline  
post #25 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:24 AM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


I don't know what you are talking about. I googled Stephen O'Meara astronomer and found a rich collection of widely recognized accomplishments, pulications in recognized journals and accolades. He may have been dismissed at one time, but that time seems to have passed..

You are saying the exact same thing as Kiwi. Just because somebody else says it does not make in incomprehensible or incorrect.
2obed is offline  
post #26 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:28 AM
Member
 
2obed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As has been pointed out, THD&N are not the complete expression of what we hear, and if you had a correct understanding of equipment specifications you'd know better. Every even semi-complete amplifier spec sheet and published test report contains information about frequency response and dynamic range as well.
Information theory has said for about 80 years that the information content of a signal is fully described by its bandwidth (frequency & phase response) and dynamic range (THD+N). No more, no less. Every audio device that can be shown to change the sound quality of recordings played through can be shown to fail to do both of these simple things well. We have fairly complete information about what kind of numbers for these measurements are required for sonic accuracy, or exact and indistinguishable sound as compared to the source recording.
There is a far more relevant understanding that if THD is less than some readily achievable number, the human ear does not notice it in any way. There are findings of the science of psychoacoustics that explain why higher order nonlinear distortion is more critical. There are other findings that explain why even low order nonlinear distoriton is repulsive to most listeners. There are no significant mysteries here!
There are other colorations of tubed gear that may apply and their effects are well known and well understood as well.
You've got options. Among them is accepting what people with a lot of experience and education in this area say.
It is known that many compressed files that show up on portable players are produced under highly substandard conditions. It is also well known that given a good set of acoustic reproducers (headphones or earphones or attachment to a good stereo system) most iPods perform as well as a very good CD player.
It doesn't sound to me like your evaluations were exactly high science. I know what happens when you look at the better portable digital players (some of which can be obtained very economically) with good science. They don't need an external DAC.
Many people.
if you want to understand what is in our minds as regards to the enjoyment of music, a little light reading would be "This Is Your Brain On Music". You can Google it up at many booksellers including Amazon. Cheaper by far than any real world audio component you are ever likely to buy, but very informative about how and why you enjoy music.
For me it is 58 years and of course there is still a lot for me to learn. But, along the way I've found a few things out. ;-)
So far I think you've only actually encountered simple answers. ;-)
Oh my, I appear to have triggered some feelings of inadequacy.
Predictable invective. And predictable information from a predictable point of view. Your interest is in proclamation, and your mind seems closed, despite your claim to the contrary. I shall stop reading your posts.
2obed is offline  
post #27 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As has been pointed out, THD&N are not the complete expression of what we hear, and if you had a correct understanding of equipment specifications you'd know better. Every even semi-complete amplifier spec sheet and published test report contains information about frequency response and dynamic range as well.
Information theory has said for about 80 years that the information content of a signal is fully described by its bandwidth (frequency & phase response) and dynamic range (THD+N). No more, no less. Every audio device that can be shown to change the sound quality of recordings played through can be shown to fail to do both of these simple things well. We have fairly complete information about what kind of numbers for these measurements are required for sonic accuracy, or exact and indistinguishable sound as compared to the source recording.
There is a far more relevant understanding that if THD is less than some readily achievable number, the human ear does not notice it in any way. There are findings of the science of psychoacoustics that explain why higher order nonlinear distortion is more critical. There are other findings that explain why even low order nonlinear distoriton is repulsive to most listeners. There are no significant mysteries here!
There are other colorations of tubed gear that may apply and their effects are well known and well understood as well.
You've got options. Among them is accepting what people with a lot of experience and education in this area say.
It is known that many compressed files that show up on portable players are produced under highly substandard conditions. It is also well known that given a good set of acoustic reproducers (headphones or earphones or attachment to a good stereo system) most iPods perform as well as a very good CD player.
It doesn't sound to me like your evaluations were exactly high science. I know what happens when you look at the better portable digital players (some of which can be obtained very economically) with good science. They don't need an external DAC.
Many people.
if you want to understand what is in our minds as regards to the enjoyment of music, a little light reading would be "This Is Your Brain On Music". You can Google it up at many booksellers including Amazon. Cheaper by far than any real world audio component you are ever likely to buy, but very informative about how and why you enjoy music.
For me it is 58 years and of course there is still a lot for me to learn. But, along the way I've found a few things out. ;-)
So far I think you've only actually encountered simple answers. ;-)
Oh my, I appear to have triggered some feelings of inadequacy.

And we see a post that responds to to them with passive aggression?
Quote:
Predictable invective.

No, apparently uncomfortable facts that are now floating down that river in Egypt: Denial. ;-)
Quote:
And predictable information from a predictable point of view. Your interest is in proclamation, and your mind seems closed, despite your claim to the contrary. I shall stop reading your posts.

No my interest is in the best available knowledge. What's your real problem with this?
arnyk is offline  
post #28 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:35 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

6Moons
If you never visit that place ever again, you won't be missing anything useful on audio. In other words, they are filled with snake oil ads and articles.
diomania is offline  
post #29 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:44 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Well I never seen any measurements for perceived soundstage depth or how natural a female vocalist may sound for example. Yet these are very important factors in my enjoyment of music though.
Why do you play dumb? You've never seen frequency response change of changing soundstage or sound of vocal? Make a use of TrueRTA.
Quote:
On a similar but different note, I once met an a astronomer called Stephen O'Meara. He had made many visual observations and discoveries of things like the rotation period of Uranus and the spokes on Saturn's rings.
Yeah, visual observation concluded that the sun revolves around earth. Good thing that was long time ago.

And why do you refuse to learn?: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1216571/high-end-cd-player-worth-it/150#post_21107314
diomania is offline  
post #30 of 75 Old 01-08-2013, 08:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2obed View Post

6Moons
If you never visit that place ever again, you won't be missing anything useful on audio. In other words, they are filled with snake oil ads and articles.

My mind is shot! Every time I see 6Moons, I think of 3 guys with bare @$$ facing away from me.

The technical content seems to often follow that same pattern.
arnyk is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off