Revisiting "Psychoacoustics and amps" thread from '02/'03-Ken Kantor, are you there?

[soundminded]

I think the most important thing to realize as a good consumer when buying an amplifier is that it is purely an electrical device. It has an electrical input, an electrical output, makes no sound of its own, and its performance is best judged against an ideal model of what it is supposed to do which can be completely and explicitly defined. If you are telling me that some amplifiers make sound systems sound different than others including solid state amplifiers, I'll agree. But it's important to know why. With older integrated amplifiers and receivers, many times the amplifier did not deliver their flattest frequency response when the tone controls were set at their indicated flat positions. To overcome this objection, some manufacturers put tone control bypass switches in their equipment on later models. Small differences in frequency response can be audible. These are usually due to minor differences in the topology of the amplifiers including their feedback loops. This can easily be compensated for by using an equalizer and in a sense the minor differences you experience between them without one is due to a form of equalization built into the circuit such as parasitic capacitance and inductance in internal wiring or layout. These may not show up on conventional bench tests. If I have one objection to amplifier testing, it's that they are usually not performed under real world conditions of use. If they were, measurements alone would tell us everything we need to know about them. For instance, for historical reasons, amplifier frequency response is normally measured at one watt output into 4 and 8 ohm resistive loads. In the 1950s this was sufficient to reveal major differences between most units but today, the more subtle differences are not explainable by this measurement. BTW, the much ballyhooed term "slewing rate" can be simply explained by the very understandable notion that as amplifier power output increases, the bandwidth decreases and at high power, some amplifiers may not have sufficient high end frequency response to accurately reproduce the higher frequency components of a waveform. Since this is invariably the result of a musical transient and the deviation in the waveform is not harmonically related to it, it is called by default "transient intermodulation distortion." A lot of words for a simple idea, it is related to a long known (to electrical engineers) property of amplifiers known as gain power bandwidth product.

It would have been very intersting to see a debate between amplifier design engineers from Mark Levinson and Crown just after they had both come within Harmon International. It would be interesting to hear how the Levinson engineers justified amplfiers which can cost ten times as much as the Crown amplifiers while not performing any better or in some cases not as well. It is not correct to say that because the flaws in an amplifier's performance mitigate those of other components in a sound system, it is a better amplifier. As an example, among the worst performing amplifiers, vacuum tube amplifiers whose frequency response in often far from flat, whose harmonic and intermodulation distortion is high, whose output impedence is high, and whose high end is rolled off, that to a degree they tame the shrill sound of current audiophile loudspeakers especially when combined with high capacitance speaker cables may be an audiophile's dream but it is an electrical engineer's nightmare. Why are tube amplifiers so poor? Most often because of the high plate impedence of the power tubes in the output stage and the awful performance of the required impedence matching output transformer. Look at the B-H curves for permalloy and supermalloy transformer iron and when you understand them, you will see why they are usually by far the worst single component in an audio sound reproduction circuit. The OTL designs strike me as far superior. BTW, to anyone who actually likes these kinds of amplifiers, especially the low powered SET types, you'd do well to consider the Sonic Impact T-amp. It sells for about $30 at Wallmart and now there is an "audiophile" version (probably just fancier packaging) for about $130. They can also be bought through Parts Express.

[Guest molecules]

We are all missing the point. The goal is to have our stereos sound like real instruments in our room.

) Recordings are not flat (I posted in the AR forum a roundly ignored article from 1971 High Fidelity that described (among other things the equilization applied for instance to voices and drums). It seems to me that we MUST contour the sound, in a (perhaps inpossible) attempt to get back to something more natural.

2) Most recordings (except possibly records) levels are too high. Prerecorded cassetes were recorded with very high levels making them worse than home tapes on a cheap deck. Popular CD's are impossibly compressed making cymbols sound unlike anything made of metal.

3) How can anything that measures flat in an anechoic chamber possibly sound correct in your listening room ? For decades , this has been a reference standard. I agree it is a reference, because there has to be a way to compare all products "fairly" but it is not a standard because achieving this "standard" GUARANTEES NOT a flat response in YOUR room.

Sorry to vent, but it is late Sunday and I think the best systems have an inaccurate component somewhere in the line.

Dave

[soundminded]

>We are all missing the point. The goal is to have our stereos

>sound like real instruments in our room.

Poor Dave, you haven't been reading my posts. You aren't arguing about amplifiers, you are lamenting the pathetic state of the art of sound recording and reproduction. 40 odd years ago, Acoustic Research proved that under highly contrived conditions, a sound system could be made to convincingly reproduce specially made recordings of one or a few musical instruments when played in the same room near them and that's about all. The state of the art hasn't changed all that much since then except that the cost of achieving the performance of some of the technology has been made much cheaper and the technology itself easier to use. Today's CD brings us the quality of a master tape played on a studio tape recorder of decades past. And if the truth be known, even today's best amplifiers sound only marginally different from the best amplifiers of that era and equal or marginally better performance to the best of that era is obtainable from very modestly priced equipment which also happens to be relatively light weight and reliable.

>

>) Recordings are not flat (I posted in the AR forum a roundly

>ignored article from 1971 High Fidelity that described (among

>other things the equilization applied for instance to voices

>and drums). It seems to me that we MUST contour the sound, in

>a (perhaps inpossible) attempt to get back to something more

>natural.

Again you belabor a misconception. Since there is no standard way to make a recording, a sound system which could not compensate for variations between different recordings and performed perfectly by your stated criteria on one recording would be flawed playing all other recordings. What is the definition of a flat recording? One that sounded accurate to the engineer who made it using the equipment set up in the studio where he mixed it down? Take that same recording elsewhere played on different equipment and it will not sound flat anymore no matter whose equipment you use.

>

>2) Most recordings (except possibly records) levels are too

>high. Prerecorded cassetes were recorded with very high levels

>making them worse than home tapes on a cheap deck. Popular

>CD's are impossibly compressed making cymbols sound unlike

>anything made of metal.

>

There are some genuine efforts to accurately record musical instruments. Acoustic instruments, usually playing classical compositions. When you get to electronic instruments or those deliberately processed to achieve a commercial effect, accuracy has no meaning.

>3) How can anything that measures flat in an anechoic chamber

>possibly sound correct in your listening room ? For decades ,

>this has been a reference standard. I agree it is a reference,

>because there has to be a way to compare all products

>"fairly" but it is not a standard because achieving

>this "standard" GUARANTEES NOT a flat response in

>YOUR room.

How can two speakers which measure the same sound different? Simple, the system we have for measuring speakers is badly flawed. It evolved in a more primitive time when differences were so gross that even these measurements were of value. But in absolute terms to tell us why speakers fall short of what they should be doing or even our understanding of what a perfect speaker is, is inadequate. BTW, for reasons I am not willing to discuss, a pulsating sphere would not make an ideal loudspeaker, at least not in a real room.

>

>Sorry to vent, but it is late Sunday and I think the best

>systems have an inaccurate component somewhere in the line.

>Dave

You are right but the inadequacy of their ability to perform as promised doesn't start with defective manufacture or design, it is far more deep rooted. It begins at the most basic conceptual level. In other words, before better sound systms come along, the basic paradigm, the notion of how the problem is analyzed and the solution approached will have to be re-examined from the ground up. Well, at least you know the emperor has no clothes. If I were you, I'd buy lots of concert tickets. That's the only way to hear music performed anyway. That or take up playing a musical instrument yourself.

[Carlspeak]

"...You are right but the inadequacy of their ability to perform as promised doesn't start with defective manufacture or design, it is far more deep rooted. It begins at the most basic conceptual level. In other words, before better sound systms come along, the basic paradigm, the notion of how the problem is analyzed and the solution approached will have to be re-examined from the ground up. Well, at least you know the emperor has no clothes. If I were you, I'd buy lots of concert tickets. That's the only way to hear music performed anyway. That or take up playing a musical instrument yourself.

soundminded"...

There is at least one solution I know of for those home bound, non-musicians yearning for the perfect reproduction of an instrument's tonal nuance, harmonics, partials, etc.; the electronic player piano. Probably running 5 figures $$$ or so, these are true pianos driven by an electronic mechanism to strike the strings driven from a specially recorded CD. So, if you are a real lover of piano music, a solution is available - at least for that one instrument.

All that's needed now is a way to extend the concept to all other instruments, rent a small hall, sit back and call it our living room and enjoy perfect tonal reproduction of real instruments in our listening environments - no matter what they are.

The rediculous dream world I have just described has already been cleverly portrayed in an all CG DVD called ANIMUSIC. If you haven't seen it, I suggest getting a copy.

On the other hand, there are the less critical listeners (like me) who are satisfied with their mid or hifi systems because they do a reasonably good job of making instruments and voices sound like same and simply ENJOY THE MUSIC because.......

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[soundminded]

>"...You are right but the inadequacy of their ability to

>perform as promised doesn't start with defective manufacture

>or design, it is far more deep rooted. It begins at the most

>basic conceptual level. In other words, before better sound

>systms come along, the basic paradigm, the notion of how the

>problem is analyzed and the solution approached will have to

>be re-examined from the ground up. Well, at least you know the

>emperor has no clothes. If I were you, I'd buy lots of concert

>tickets. That's the only way to hear music performed anyway.

>That or take up playing a musical instrument yourself.

>

>soundminded"...

>

>There is at least one solution I know of for those home bound,

>non-musicians yearning for the perfect reproduction of an

>instrument's tonal nuance, harmonics, partials, etc.; the

>electronic player piano. Probably running 5 figures $$$ or so,

>these are true pianos driven by an electronic mechanism to

>strike the strings driven from a specially recorded CD. So, if

>you are a real lover of piano music, a solution is available -

>at least for that one instrument.

This is a joke. An electronic piano is no more a real piano than an electronic violin is a real violin. I own three pianos, two remarkable Baldwin Acrosonic spinets, the only spinets which sound like grand pianos I ever heard due to their power and brilliant clarity and a Steinway grand. Anyone who owns an instrument like this knows that no electronic piano ever has sounded like one and likely none will come along which will for some time to come. It takes over a year to make a Steinway piano and it has over 12,000 parts. Nobody would pay tens of thousands of dollars for them if they could just go out and buy an electronic piano which sounds just as good. No world class artist would ever agree to perform in public on an electronic piano (except perhaps as a well paid advertising stunt) and none would ever agree to allow their artistry to be judged playing one. That is why most world class artists insist on Steinways. There are a few very fine pianists who like Baldwins, Earl Wild is one, Marian MacPartland is another. A few jazz artists like Yamahas but for the life of me I can't see why. They usually do not have the beautiful bell like ringing quality Steinways and Baldwins invariably have, at least not to my ears.

>

>All that's needed now is a way to extend the concept to all

>other instruments, rent a small hall, sit back and call it our

>living room and enjoy perfect tonal reproduction of real

>instruments in our listening environments - no matter what

>they are.

>The rediculous dream world I have just described has already

>been cleverly portrayed in an all CG DVD called ANIMUSIC. If

>you haven't seen it, I suggest getting a copy.

It is a rediculous dream world. Music is not made by machines, it's made by people and one of its characteristics is its spontaneity of communication. Artists at live performances sense this and play "to" the audience. The sounds which come from electronic music reproduction devices we call music is actually only a facsimile of music and at the current state of the art, almost always a very poor one. I've only been convinced a few times that a recording sounded like the real thing, twice during AR live versus recorded demonstrations.

About three hundred years ago in Cremona Italy, a handful of people discovered a secret about how to make violins producing instruments which made sounds the like of which the world had never heard before and has never heard from newer instruments since. They took that secret to the grave with them. Despite all of our science and technology, no matter how carefully or thoroughly they are studied, nobody has yet to figured out their secrets. Nor can their sound be captured on recordings. I am familiar with one of them, a priceless Guarneri del Jesu having heard it many times in my parent's home, in the home of the violinist who owns it, and in quite a number of concert halls including Carnegie Hall. It's as loud as a trumpet but it is so sweet its tone is almost impossible to describe. I am certain that the person sitting in the last seat in the last row of the top balcony at Carnegie Hall had no trouble hearing it. These priceless instruments rarely are up for auction and when they are, they often now command almost whatever price the owner wants for them, they are that rare and valuable. Sadly, many are reaching the end of their useable life. By the most remarkable of coincidences, I heard a recently made copy of this particular violin a few months ago built by a fine violin maker we know. OK we were down in his workshop for several hours playing it. It was almost as loud on three strings as the original but the G string was a disaster. The copy's tone was raw and coarse which was to be expected at its stage of life and just might well work out with enough playing and time but that G string will never be right. Here's a site to compare the sound of two violins (not the ones I heard live), a Guarneri del Jesu and a recent copy by a violin maker who claims to have discovered "the secret" of the masters.

http://orpheusviolinhouse.com/id8.html

Can you hear the difference? (Click the speaker button on the left side and you can adjust the volume to balance the two, I found the top one had to be set below halfway to match the bottom one at max.) Even with my junky little computer speakers I was able to identify the difference pretty quickly. Not only that but frankly the quality of playing on the newer instrument was awful, it's a recording I would not wish to own and I don't think we'd accept that quality of playing from students here.) Sometimes, the "playability" of an instrument makes it hard or even impossible to perform well one no matter what its other virtues. BTW, Our resident violinist identified the two blind within one second.

>On the other hand, there are the less critical listeners (like

>me) who are satisfied with their mid or hifi systems because

>they do a reasonably good job of making instruments and voices

>sound like same and simply ENJOY THE MUSIC because.......

>

>It's all about the music

>

>Carl

>Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

I've been listening to both live and recorded music all of my life. I was very fortunate to be born into a household which had an abundance of both. There were always violins, pianos, phonographs and records and WQXR. I was also fortunate to start attending live concerts regularly at a very early age, I'd say about six years old since family members and their friends played in amateur orchestras and went to lots of concerts. While I enjoy both, I never get them mixed up and I am always aware that sonically, recordings are invariably second best. It's too bad but I'm afraid that's still the reality of it.

[Carlspeak]

Your dead on regarding live vs recorded music. It would be nice if all of us could attend live concerts frequently, but our current lifestyles dictate otherwise and that is why the next best thing is recordings. :-(

"....This is a joke. An electronic piano is no more a real piano than an electronic violin is a real violin. I own three pianos, two remarkable Baldwin Acrosonic spinets, the only spinets which sound like grand pianos I ever heard due to their power and brilliant clarity and a Steinway grand. Anyone who owns an instrument like this knows that no electronic piano ever has sounded like one and likely none will come along which will for some time to come. It takes over a year to make a Steinway piano and it has over 12,000 parts. Nobody would pay tens of thousands of dollars for them if they could just go out and buy an electronic piano which sounds just as good. No world class artist would ever agree to perform in public on an electronic piano (except perhaps as a well paid advertising stunt) and none would ever agree to allow their artistry to be judged playing one. That is why most world class artists insist on Steinways. There are a few very fine pianists who like Baldwins, Earl Wild is one, Marian MacPartland is another. A few jazz artists like Yamahas but for the life of me I can't see why. They usually do not have the beautiful bell like ringing quality Steinways and Baldwins invariably have, at least not to my ears..."

Soundminded

No, this is not a joke. You may have misunderstood me. Check out the link below. It will direct you to your beloved Baldwin piano's web site. They have the technology to turn ANY Baldwin into a 'no hands on' player piano. This is what I was referring to.

This rest of my #153 post was written with tongue firmly in cheek.

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Divisions/Bald...layer%20System/

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[soundminded]

>No, this is not a joke. You may have misunderstood me. Check

>out the link below. It will direct you to your beloved Baldwin

>piano's web site. They have the technology to turn ANY Baldwin

>into a 'no hands on' player piano. This is what I was

>referring to.

>This rest of my #153 post was written with tongue firmly in

>cheek.

>

>http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Divisions/Bald...layer%20System/

>

>It's all about the music

>

>Carl

>Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Of course it was, I feel silly being had so easily. I must have been out of circulation too long.

The player piano concept using a cd is not new. I've seen many Yamahas. Every Holland America ship I've been on had one in the lobby of the main atrium often playing all day long. I once saw an upright a long time ago with Marantz's name on it. I guess Yamaha's patent expired. Apparantly you can refit many pianos to do it, it's the modern equivalent of the old piano roll player piano. They say it does not affect the tone of the piano itself and you can of course play it like a conventional piano.

Did you listen to the two violin recordings of the Bach Partita #2 I referenced? What did you think?

[Carlspeak]

>Did you listen to the two violin recordings of the Bach

>Partita #2 I referenced? What did you think?

Soundminded

Sorry, no, I didn't listen. However, I believe what is there is true.

Regarding priceless violins, if you haven't seen it already, I suggest you rent a copy of "THE RED VIOLIN". It's a wonderful fictional account of a particularly special violin with the instrument's soundtrack played by Joshua Bell. I was particularly impressed with the "gypsy player" segment of the movie. I love Joshua's playing but can't stand to watch him bob and weave as he plays.

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[soundminded]

>

>>Did you listen to the two violin recordings of the Bach

>>Partita #2 I referenced? What did you think?

>Soundminded

>

>Sorry, no, I didn't listen. However, I believe what is there

>is true.

>

>Regarding priceless violins, if you haven't seen it already, I

>suggest you rent a copy of "THE RED VIOLIN". It's a

>wonderful fictional account of a particularly special violin

>with the instrument's soundtrack played by Joshua Bell. I was

>particularly impressed with the "gypsy player"

>segment of the movie. I love Joshua's playing but can't stand

>to watch him bob and weave as he plays.

>

>

>It's all about the music

>

>Carl

>Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

I rented the Red Violin many years ago and saw it several times. I enjoyed it very much. My violin maker friend says one flaw in the story is that blood is not soluable in varnish, at least not the types used in that era.

Joshua Bell would be an outstanding artist except he has one fatal flaw in his playing. He had sensational technique, his intonation is always perfect, his tone is stunning. His problem is that he has no dynamics, he always plays at the same loudness. This makes him unacceptable as a world class artist, not only because it makes his music so boring but it shows a profound lack of understanding of the composer's intent and does not portray what he had in mind. Very sad that this one glaring shortcoming should mar what has such great potential. BTW, I don't care what he does while he plays, he can dance a jig standing on his head for all I care, it's the sonic results which count. After all.....It's all about the music :-)

[dynaco_dan]

>

>http://orpheusviolinhouse.com/id8.html

>

Hi Soundminded;

I forgot to thank you for that link.

You have had a much greater musical exposure than most members here.

You are a very fortunate man, thank you for sharing that with us.

[Guest molecules]

Lucky enough to have free concerts most Fridays or Sat, Yale Philharmonina, Yale symphony, and Yale Concert, at least I think we still do, haven't been in a few years. Need to go back, youngest kid has just started college, maybe we can start to go out again ! Boy, Fridays have been hell for years. Years of giving rides, then worse when they were old enough to drive worrying about where they are going and what they are doing..