|
|
#481
10-04-12, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sitting at home with a good pair of Sens and I'd agree completely. Over buds or little supra-aural phones while riding the bus, train or just walking along the street and its a different story. The hardware limitations and more importantly the high ambient noise make compression essential. Quote:
I'd argue those are far from the norm. If I pick ten albums at random from my library, all produced over the past decade I'll be lucky to find one that looks anything like that. Sure, there are some dreadful examples around but they aren't the norm IME. Quote:
Substitute cassette Walkman, personal CD player or even home micro system. You can even include the car audio system. The issue remains the same - a combination of hardware not suited to wide dynamic range, and listening conditions where high ambient noise make compression desirable. Last edited by Robert; 10-04-12 at 11:20 AM. |
|
#482
10-04-12, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#483
10-04-12, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#484
10-04-12, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#485
10-04-12, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That is my position (and his). It isn't at odds with my previous comment. Neither of us have ever claimed that all amplifiers sound the same. I regard many (though certainly not all) valve amplifiers as incompetent where the sole qualifier is transparency. Doesn't mean they can't reproduce thoroughly enjoyable music. I use and enjoy valve amplification myself sometimes but I'm not blind to the limitations. Quote:
Christ knows what these folk have been reading! Last edited by Robert; 10-04-12 at 11:23 AM. |
|
#486
10-04-12, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i have heard great music from copland, audio note, croft and audio research amps over the years and even my own old unreliable and temperamental counterpoint valve pre amplifier..... .......some people are choosing not to see certain elements of the discussion. |
|
#487
10-04-12, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fwiw, I have never inferred that either of Darryl or Robert thought that all amps sounded the same. Robert's position is pretty clear and both have given the thumbs-up to my valve amps.
 Serge otoh is more black-and white. Valves are a no-no because they are not transparent. I agree that transparency is an absolute, ergo all transparent amps sound the same. However, where we differ is that I think absolutely transparent amplifiers are like hens' teeth...
__________________
Always try for yourself before buying. |
|
#488
10-04-12, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can say, furthermore, that the chance of a SET amplifier passing such a test is remote (although possible, I suppose) but it is possible for a PPUL amplifier with a good output transformer and sensible amounts of feedback to pass. The main issue with valve amplifiers is their output impedance is too high, and consequently they modify the frequency response of the loudspeaker they are driving. Older valve amps seem much better in this respect than recent ones. Of course, with the right choice of loudspeakers, (say KEF 104/2) even a valve amplifier can have a flat frequency response, so with valve amplifiers, the load is far more important than for a modern SS amplifier, which generally will drive anything half-sensible indistinguishably from any other amplifier. It should be noted that in the James Moir tests using Quad amplification into Yamaha NS1000 loudspeakers, the II (bridged), 303 and 405 were indistinguishable, whilst the Martin Collums tests using Quad, Naim and TVA amplifiers into KEF 105s produced the same result. S.
__________________
http://sites.google.com/site/audiopages/home |
|
#489
10-04-12, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've pruned a lot of noise, it would be good to keep this thread to the Harbeth related discussion, and use Darryl's other thread to talk about brick walling etc. Apologies if you lost something in the crossfire.
Please play nicely now gentlemen. [moderating] |
|
#490
10-04-12, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I doubt the majority of people give even a passing thought to transparency when putting together a system to listen to music at home, transparency will be the sole qualifier for only a very small group of extremists. I'm not sure what you're on about in that post to be honest. I've been reading your posts, I asked for clarification of your position and you confirmed my understanding you believe all competently designed amplifiers sound the same. The problem is not everyone accepts your personal definition of competently designed, nor does the majority even care since what really matters is how something sounds. I've no idea why, but since you mentioned valve amplifiers my view is not all valve amplifiers sound the same and not all SS amplifiers sound the same. It's not possible to say things like "SS amplifiers are better than valve amplifiers" or vice versa. It's about enjoying listening to music at home, which means putting together a complete system that works in your room, with your music and your listening habits. So the bottom line is each individual makes their own choices and for many people that means a SS amplifier is best and for others a valve amplifier may be best regardless of your complaints about distortion, which I've never actually managed to identify when listening to music but then I've no idea what transparency sounds like either, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what transparency sounds like to me. If transparency sounds like a naim 72/140 and a distorted sound is my valve amplifier, then you're placing importance on the wrong things because (for me) the valve amplifier sounds better, it is more enjoyable listening to my music and that is the one and only reason for bothering with this at all. Quote:
For the heavily weighted in favour of Harbeth test I would still suggest keeping it really simple and using two amplifiers from the same company that you measurement guys think sound the same, such as a naim 32.5/140 versus 42.5/140. After all, the circuit in the preamp is the same so they sound the same, don't they... 
Last edited by Brian; 10-04-12 at 01:53 PM. |
|
#491
10-04-12, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
that is after all different from what he has just written. |
|
#492
10-04-12, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not at all, mate. When I say it's my understanding of what Rob is saying then I mean just that. To suggest any misrepresentation on my part implies in my view it is intentional when it is not. Some may not like what I post but I don't deliberately set out to misrepresent anyone, it's a stupid thing to do. I said to Rob: "Previous posts of yours (or was it Serge?) indicate you think all competently designed amplifiers made in the last 'x' years sound the same." In reply, Rob said, "That is my position" I see no misrepresentation there nor misunderstanding. |
|
#494
10-04-12, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
no one is saying it mvv but some people think people are saying it, under the premise that it's their own interpretation of what said people are saying.....as brian has just demonstrated.....understand now?
i know it's weird..... |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
