Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Another Johnson]

Any thread that runs for more than two or three pages isn’t useful for someone who is actually interested in the topic of the thread. It is far too rare on WBF to close threads or at least remove egos before this sort of train wreck thread happens. Does a thread like this drive traffic to the site, or away from the site. I think it’s the latter.

 

[PYP]

Any thread that runs for more than two or three pages isn’t useful for someone who is actually interested in the topic of the thread. It is far too rare on WBF to close threads or at least remove egos before this sort of train wreck thread happens. Does a thread like this drive traffic to the site, or away from the site. I think it’s the latter.

is it time to repeat the rules of the road?

Terms and Rules:

2. Any post, and any portion of a post, which, in the sole discretion of the forum administrators, serves only to insult personally a member is prohibited. Violation of this Term of Service may result in a warning; a second violation may result in a temporary suspension; and a third violation may result in termination of your membership. Any such post, and any such portion of a post, may be deleted with or without notice.

9. Where possible, please avoid generalizations which create heated arguments. Please don’t say “all amps sound the same” but rather, “all the amps I have heard sound the same to me.” Following this rule not only makes for a calmer atmosphere, but also saves you hours and days of aggravation while you try to defend your point of view!

 

[PYP]

Thus, following rule #9...All solid state amps do not sound the same to me. More specifically, three iterations of an amp designed by the same amp designer did not sound the same to me (Ncore-based DIY, NAD, Mola Mola).

Furthermore, the amp designer continues to refine his design. Why? Can there be no improvement? If there is room for improvement, is the improvement in the sound quality (among other things)?

The designer, Bruno Putzeys, recently co-founded Purifi Audio. Their purpose statement:

"Scientifically proven technology breakthroughs that enable unrivalled performance, quality and ease-of-use. R&D with the purpose of removing all technical limitations in the enjoyment of reproduced music..."

 

[Rt66indierock]

Any thread that runs for more than two or three pages isn’t useful for someone who is actually interested in the topic of the thread. It is far too rare on WBF to close threads or at least remove egos before this sort of train wreck thread happens. Does a thread like this drive traffic to the site, or away from the site. I think it’s the latter.

I disagree. The most important thread in audio today is MQA is Vaporware. It has been going on since January 2, 2017, and is 1074 pages with 2.9 million views.

Keep the egos and the train wrecks they advance my agenda which is to divide the audio world into high performance audio and whatever is going on here.

 

[Geoffkait]

Furthermore, the amp designer continues to refine his design. Why? Can there be no improvement? If there is room for improvement, is the improvement in the sound quality (among other things)?

One can only hope.

 

[twitch]

I disagree. The most important thread in audio today is MQA is Vaporware. It has been going on since January 2, 2017, and is 1074 pages with 2.9 million views.

Keep the egos and the train wrecks they advance my agenda which is to divide the audio world into high performance audio and whatever is going on here.

As a retired railroader I hate train wrecks ........

 

[hopkins]

I disagree. The most important thread in audio today is MQA is Vaporware. It has been going on since January 2, 2017, and is 1074 pages with 2.9 million views.

If importance were measured by the number of views Kim Kardashian would be president. Actually, it seems Mr. Beast gets the crown - never heard of him!

 

[Rt66indierock]

As a retired railroader I hate train wrecks ........

MQA is Vaporware was and is not a cornfield meet. It was an intentional collision between people who have more status and influence than the people who are considered the audiophile authority structure.

Online train wrecks have nothing to do with real railroading.

 

[Geoffkait]

Honestly I had no idea there even was an audiophile authority structure. Well, shut my mouth and call me corn pone!

 

[cjfrbw]

Honestly I had no idea there even was an audiophile authority structure. Well, shut my mouth and call me corn pone!

You never heard of audio blasphemy?

 

[the sound of Tao]

First let’s be clear. Audibly transparent. Net result is they sound the same, no sonic character of their own. How many do you want? It’s most SS amps. Certainly my amps, the Sanders Magtech and Anthem M1s are audibly transparent. Do you want more?

I’ve got a Sanders Magtech which I had on my Magenepan 20.7s so I’m very familiar with the amp and a mate had a pair of Magtechs he ran as monos into his Magnepan 20.7s. Even just swapping from a stereo to the monos on his rig sounded different to when he was running just one as a stereo Magtech amp.

I’ve heard the Anthem M1s as well, my ex brother in law had this, (we did an AB compare of the two at the time he was buying the M1 second hand). I much preferred the Magtech amp but I’d suggest there are better solid state amps out there than both these. Both these amps are reasonably neutral in balance but neither of them is transparent.

 

[cjfrbw]

How does one know that something is audibly transparent without extra sensory perception channeling of the source in an A/B comparison?

I would say that transparency is a continuum of the unknown, but potentially further revealed by better components.

An amplifier that manages to sound 'more transparent' than another simply falsifies the apparent transparency of the previous amp. Also, transparency might just be either the absence or presence of certain features that the listener likes or dislikes.

I remember the olden days of alleged 'waveform fidelity', which was flogged to sell some pretty bad sounding solid state amps.

 

[PYP]

How does one know that something is audibly transparent without extra sensory perception channeling of the source in an A/B comparison?

I would say that transparency is a continuum of the unknown, but potentially further revealed by better components.

An amplifier that manages to sound 'more transparent' than another simply falsifies the apparent transparency of the previous amp. Also, transparency might just be either the absence or presence of certain features that the listener likes or dislikes.

I remember the olden days of alleged 'waveform fidelity', which was flogged to sell some pretty bad sounding solid state amps.

Yes, "Continuum of the unknown." Great phrase.

Agree that it is always "compared to what?" Having tried various amps that used a similar N-core amp module, there was more musical detail as the progression went from DIY to OEM to the designer's best effort of utilizing his own module (all using the same speakers, ICs and speaker cables).

Musical detail, for me, means revealing more of the interaction of the musicians and/or the meaning of a song/composition. At first, it was also about the sound growing bigger and denser. At some point, the gear seemed besides the point and musical engagement was the point.

I typically explain that progression as achieving more transparency. I assume that as the distortion is reduced (OEM version had better power supply than the DIY and the Mola Mola probably better than that) one achieves an amplifier that is transparent enough that it reveals the components that are upstream.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I typically explain that progression as achieving more transparency. I assume that as the distortion is reduced (OEM version had better power supply than the DIY and the Mola Mola probably better than that) one achieves an amplifier that is transparent enough that it reveals the components that are upstream.

This is definitely a hobby where the relative plays out way more often than the use of absolutes.

Transparent as a word doesn’t sit at all realistically on its own… but things appearing more or less transparent works fine in comparisons (and is still based around some level of assumption).

As does us defining things as being more or less synthetic sounding.

Gear tends to reflect different characteristics that shape the sound in various ways otherwise there would be not much for us to do in the hobby… other than swim in a sea of logical fallacies.

 

[PYP]

This is definitely a hobby where the relative plays out way more often than the use of absolutes.

Transparent as a word doesn’t sit at all comfortably on its own… but things appearing more or less transparent works fine in comparisons (and is still based around some level of assumption).

As does us defining things as being more or less synthetic sounding.

Gear tends to reflect different characteristics that shape the sound in various ways otherwise there would be not much for us to do in the hobby… other than swim in a sea of logical fallacies.

you seem to have gear that provides you with a comparison across types of speakers and amplification. I'm interested in your observations regarding transparency and/or synthetic sound of gear you own and use.

 

[the sound of Tao]

you seem to have gear that provides you with a comparison across types of speakers and amplification. I'm interested in your observations regarding transparency and/or synthetic sound of gear you own and use.

Unfortunately my flame proof suit is in at the cleaners PYP.

But still I’m probably on record lately as having grown more towards some of it… over the last five years I’ve come more to the feeling that the horn and SET gear that I have better reflects the experience of live music more so for me than does the other gear that I have… but I play at a price point and also while I still play a fairly broad set of music I do spend a lot of my time playing (mostly) jazz and classical. I personally think that this gear is a niche and not necessarily the right gear for everyone at all.

I also don’t use the transparent word generally, earlier was more of an exception and avoid gear that sounds synthetic at the point where it creates a devaluation of the music that I like and dissipates into something of a disconnect or a turn off… but those determinations are about tipping points in experiences and very much about fine measures of more and less.

 

[Geoffkait]

I’d say it’s a little premature to judge the transparency of an amplifier before applying room treatments, vibration isolation, cleaning all electrical contacts including non-audio outlets, and anything else you can think of to improve your chances. Yes, I know what some of you are thinking, “but solid state amps don’t need to be isolated.”

“We don’t use tweaks, we want our customers to hear the natural sound of the speakers and components.“ - High end retailer.

The audiophile law of maximization: No matter how much you have in the end you would have had even more if you had started out with more.

 

[hopkins]

I’d say it’s a little premature to judge the transparency of an amplifier before applying room treatments, vibration isolation, cleaning all electrical contacts including non-audio outlets, and anything else you can think of to improve your chances.

If we followed those recommendations we would never listen to anything or at least never comment on it

 

[Geoffkait]

Most folks believe the CD clear layer is transparent. But it’s not. See where I’m going with this?

 

[PYP]

Unfortunately my flame proof suit is in at the cleaners PYP.

Understood. It is interesting how passionate some fellows become about audio. I cannot recall any oft quoted poem or statement of one of the well-known philosophers that mentions hifi. It would be surprising to read a sentence that started "Nothing raises the passions of men" and ends with a mention of hifi.

But there are quotes that might be attributable to hifi. Here is one: "Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”