Constant Power

[Duke LeJeune]

Duke-I for one never felt you were snarky and took zero offense at anything you said. It would be nice to see some independent measurements of one of Ralph's current amps to see how they have improved. Has the S/N ratio improved over the years?

Thank you for not taking offense when you legitimately could have. (On the other hand, I think I was trying to be snarky... guess I'll have to try harder with the next guy...)

I remember a couple of years ago Ralph telling me about something he'd done that resulted in roughly an order of magnitude improvement in a particular area, both visible on the oscilloscope and audible (which apparently isn't always the case), but I don't remember the exact details. However I think it had to do with low-level behavior because I remember thinking that it was theoretically a very good place for an improvement based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of where Masking is and is not effective. I think this was the Mark 3.1 generation circuit.

Hopefully Ralph will come along and set the record straight.

 

[mep]

Thank you for not taking offense when you legitimately could have. (On the other hand, I think I was trying to be snarky... guess I'll have to try harder with the next guy...)

Duke-Trust me, what you said is very benign compared to some things some people say including Ralph. Anytime somebody says something negative about gear that you own or are a dealer for, it's only natural to see the knives come out.

 

[JackD201]

i am not sure about that one. any time we even think that two channel is "supposed to or even attempt to" sound like the real event, its the first, and fundamental wrong step IMO. just as has been brought up in this thread about how the speaker attempts to control the amp, ie feedback or none in either case the speaker still controls the amp to certain extent, butr just differently, "stereo" controls the listening experience. its a totally differnt animal, and at best can hardly deal with more than three instruments playing at the same time before the IMD starts to "become" the new sound as opposed to the recorded sound. let alone, the "stereo effect".

i have never and never will expect a stereo to sound like the real thing, not in the same room. but play some simple acoustic guitar, and go down the hall to another room and yeah, you could have a hard time kmowing if its real or not.

IMO the first expectation to get over is ecpecting stereo to sound real. then, IMO, you are left with assembing a system that is accurate to the recording and adding in your own processing, or assemble as system that overall creates a sound you like, without processing. either camp, IMO works, but if you do the processing your less likely to feed the high end manufacturers sales though.

There's no getting around the fact that the content is overwhelmingly in 2-channel. If they are lemons, they are lemons. Nobody is going to stop me from making lemonade.

 

[mep]

There's no getting around the fact that the content is overwhelmingly in 2-channel. If they are lemons, they are lemons. Nobody is going to stop me from making lemonade.

Ralph wishes everyone was listening to two channel audio through Class A triode OTL amps with zero negative feedback and Tom wishes that no one had to listen to two channel audio.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Whenever we adopt a definition of "accurate" that leads us away from recreating the perception of a live performance, we are measuring with the wrong yardstick (unless our audience is made up of test instruments).

It's not a bad idea to get a feel for how much of a divide there is between generally accepted distortion measurements (THD) and human auditory perception. Information and resources have been posted in this thread, but the concepts are not necessarily obvious - just like Toole's perspective on reflections certainly isn't obvious at first bounce.

If you're not familiar with what Toole has to say about in-room reflections, my post (the one you were responding to) probably didn't make much sense. Here's an excellent introduction:

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomReflections.html

I was talking about amps, and the definition of accurate is the closest reproduction of the input signal, amplified, at output. It's not a something we've adopted, it is the very definition of "high fidelity." Speakers and rooms? A different story. A lot of different approaches out there, quite a few capable of a very nice presentation, from boxes to panels to Linkwitz wonderful creations. I like Olive's (and, i assume, Toole's) basic approach a lot. Get speakers that stay pretty linear, even off axis, and let the space work a bit

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Ralph wishes everyone was listening to two channel audio through Class A triode OTL amps with zero negative feedback and Tom wishes that no one had to listen to two channel audio.

I wish I could get Ode to Joy in pill or better yet gelcap form. LOL!

 

[Duke LeJeune]

I was talking about amps, and the definition of accurate is the closest reproduction of the input signal, amplified, at output. It's not a something we've adopted, it is the very definition of "high fidelity." Speakers and rooms? A different story. A lot of different approaches out there, quite a few capable of a very nice presentation, from boxes to panels to Linkwitz wonderful creations. I like Olive's (and, i assume, Toole's) basic approach a lot. Get speakers that stay pretty linear, even off axis, and let the space work a bit

Tim

Okay, I'm definitely with you on Toole, and I'd have to read more Olive but what I've read so far I'm down with.

Back to amps... if perfect reproduction of the input signal is not possible, is it better to err on the side of a little bit of objectionable distortion, or a lot of benign distortion?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Okay, I'm definitely with you on Toole, and I'd have to read more Olive but what I've read so far I'm down with.

Back to amps... if perfect reproduction of the input signal is not possible, is it better to err on the side of a little bit of objectionable distortion, or a lot of benign distortion?

While i'm sure we'd agree on what's possible, I think we may have differing views of "benign."

Tim

 

[Duke LeJeune]

While i'm sure we'd agree on what's possible, I think we may have differing views of "benign."

I though that might be the case after I posted. Yep, I think that's one of the places our opinions diverge.

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Duke-Trust me, what you said is very benign compared to some things some people say including Ralph. Anytime somebody says something negative about gear that you own or are a dealer for, it's only natural to see the knives come out.

"Benign" - I like that. Thank you. Hopefully my distortions are mostly second harmonic, though I'm sure the percentage is quite high!

If you can, hold open the the door of possibility just a little until you meet Ralph in person at RMAF. I don't know your history with him aside from this thread, but the internet is where even very good people can easily get off to a very bad start. Real life is a great place for a restart, and you just may find (as I have) that Ralph is very good people.

 

[microstrip]

There's no getting around the fact that the content is overwhelmingly in 2-channel. If they are lemons, they are lemons. Nobody is going to stop me from making lemonade.

Happily. But they will tell you that lemonade is not the proper way to eat lemons and ask if you have carried blind tests on your favorite way of doing lemonade. Besides, if you add sugar to your lemon juice, you will be considered an heretic.

 

[mep]

Well, you got it wrong again. In fact, if tom had to wish, it would be that everything were recorded in true binaural and we had proper transducer systems (besides headphones) to play it back on. FYI.

OK. I should have said you wished that everyone had to listen to binaural recordings. In your upper post you expressed surprise that no except me commented on what you had said. It's probably because you have said it all many times before. It's just a constant poke in the eye to all who love the illusions they are able to create with their systems in their rooms.

 

[Roger Dressler]

And I think if all that energy and passion was going into developing great signal processing tools that could be adjusted to recordings and rooms, it would do a lot more good.

Great post, Tim. The point you make about using the speakers/room "remastering" to create "realistic" sounding reflections indeed falls apart when the acoustic contributions are not complementary with the music at hand.

Alternatively, signal processing offers a way to alter the spatial properties of the playback presentation that is not a "one size fits all" proposition. Processes like Trifield and Pro Logic II, which some purists may shun, nonetheless use only the sounds in the source to work their magic. They add no reflections, reverb, and do no room/reflection modeling. Whatever you hear was in the source. Whether you cotton to the algorithm's rearrangement of the sounds through additional speakers is another matter entirely that each must decide on their own.

Recently, a new tool with a new perspective has surfaced: the Immersive Audio Processor by Illusonic (I reported about it this WBF thread). While it shares the same basic philosophy of presenting only that which is in the source, it is clearly a different approach compared with previous surround processors, one I thought might be more appealing to stereo enthusiasts (if they can get past the issue that the signal is digitally processed, and that more speakers are needed ). I hope that some of y'all can hear it someday, as I'd be curious about your impressions of its rather subtle effect.

 

[mep]

Why do I need to directly quote you when that was never the intent of the message I was trying to get across Tom? When I have a particular issue with what someone said, I always quote them exactly and you should know that by now. You have very general rants against two channel stereo even though you beg to differ sometimes. You have tone-downed your tag line, but it still tells the tale.

 

[JackD201]

happily. But they will tell you that lemonade is not the proper way to eat lemons and ask if you have carried blind tests on your favorite way of doing lemonade. Besides, if you add sugar to your lemon juice, you will be considered an heretic.

rotfl!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Happily. But they will tell you that lemonade is not the proper way to eat lemons and ask if you have carried blind tests on your favorite way of doing lemonade. Besides, if you add sugar to your lemon juice, you will be considered an heretic.

No, but one woul hope you would be able to accept that you like your lemonade sweet, and acknowledge that you have added sugar instead of insisting that your preference in lemonade is somehow inexplicably closer to real lemons.

Yeah...I think we need one...

Tim

 

[mep]

what we have here is a failure to communicate, famous line from a movie i bet you remember. OK then, water under the bridge, I guess we will both occasionally annoy one another as I see no changes either side. Kind of like the opposing parties anyway, this is a great thread and I am not going to further side track it.

Actually Tom, I was waiting for you to wade into this debate much earlier with your talk of "harmonic spray."

 

[Duke LeJeune]

a SET amp is quite something, we got dynamic gain with frequency and dynamic harmonic spray, and it helps plain old stereo sound more alive (IMO), and that aint no jive! but if there are only a few instruments playing, say jazz or simple rock, OK, however if playing full orchestra...faagettt it, IMD gets crazy bad, sound goes to mudd.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the limitations of SET amps on full orchestra you mention here (which probably apply more to some than to others) may not apply to OTL amps. I'd like to quote uber-hardcore (and uber hard-to-impress) speaker and amplifier designer Lynn Olson, describing his observations from a major high-end audio show:

"The dynamic limitations [of high-end fullrange drivers] are real, even with pricey LAMM electronics, and my Mercury CD of Antal Dorati conducting Picture at an Exhibition fell well short of realistic symphonic levels. (The ****** did just fine, though, and was the only system at the show that played this extremely challenging recording. On almost all systems it sounds distorted - but it isn't, just very energetic and intense.)"

Lynn uses that CD as his speaker torture test. He told me it has 70 dB of dynamic range, and he sets the level so that he can just barely hear the tape hiss at his listening chair, and estimates that that was about 40 dB, based on measurements he'd made at home. If so, the ****** system was theoretically delivering very complex 110 dB ballpark peaks without audible distortion. What amps were in the system? In a minute.

Lynn goes on:

"I personally think the ****** is a better choice for those of us who like full-scale symphonic, choral, and rock music. Much more headroom, and superb tonal balance - a rarity at this year's show."

Remember that the amplifier has to do its part and do it well in order for the ****** speakers to make such an impression on Lynn. The speaker's getting the credit here, but obviously couldn't do it alone. So, what was this distortion-free dynamic monster of an amp?

Ralph's entry-level model, the little S-30. Driving 93 dB "power paradigm" speakers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the limitations of SET amps on full orchestra you mention here (which probably apply more to some than to others) may not apply to OTL amps. I'd like to quote uber-hardcore (and uber hard-to-impress) speaker and amplifier designer Lynn Olson, describing his observations from a major high-end audio show:

"The dynamic limitations [of high-end fullrange drivers] are real, even with pricey LAMM electronics, and my Mercury CD of Antal Dorati conducting Picture at an Exhibition fell well short of realistic symphonic levels. (The ****** did just fine, though, and was the only system at the show that played this extremely challenging recording. On almost all systems it sounds distorted - but it isn't, just very energetic and intense.)"

Lynn uses that CD as his speaker torture test. He told me it has 70 dB of dynamic range, and he sets the level so that he can just barely hear the tape hiss at his listening chair, and estimates that that was about 40 dB, based on measurements he'd made at home. If so, the ****** system was theoretically delivering very complex 110 dB ballpark peaks without audible distortion. What amps were in the system? In a minute.

Lynn goes on:

"I personally think the ****** is a better choice for those of us who like full-scale symphonic, choral, and rock music. Much more headroom, and superb tonal balance - a rarity at this year's show."

Remember that the amplifier has to do its part and do it well in order for the ****** speakers to make such an impression on Lynn. The speaker's getting the credit here, but obviously couldn't do it alone. So, what was this distortion-free dynamic monster of an amp?

Ralph's entry-level model, the little S-30. Driving 93 dB "power paradigm" speakers.

I don't think the problem is limited to dynamic range, or to symphonic music. I think it is all of that "benign" THD, and I hear it in densely-layered multi-track recordings, tightly-voiced harmony parts...lots of modern analog and digital recordings, from a variety of vintage and modern tube gear. Admittedly broad generalization -- I think "euphonic" gear does well with voices, horns, strings...when recordings are sparse and there is a lot of breathing room. I think it does a lot less well with percussion, particularly hard transients like cymbals, bells, rim shots...you may like them better, they are often smoother, but they're wrong. And I think THD, or at least that's what I guess I'm hearing, loses its charm altogether when things get dense. This is what I hear. Could be my own expectation bias. Could be that I'm hearing something else altogether. But when people talk of benign, or even beneficial THD, this is what I think of. This is why I don't consider it benign. This is why I don't like the sound of it.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...)

Ralph's entry-level model, the little S-30. Driving 93 dB "power paradigm" speakers (at RMAF 2007).

Courtesy of diyaudio.com.