Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[treitz3]

Hello, Gregadd. I can not get a hold of Bob right now but I did talk with Mr. Milton McNally who pretty much ran the carver Corp. under Bob and he can't recall which amplifier was used. He said that from memory, it wasn't a bench or prototype model, that it was something that was in current production at the time. He had mentioned to me that if he knew more about what products were offered at the time of the challenge that he might remember which one was used. In the meantime, I'll keep trying to touch base with Bob and see if he remembers. I was always under the impression that he used parts of an existing amplifier, heavily modified it and added the resistor at the outputs to emulate the tube sound but let's wait until we hear it from the horses mouth.

BTW, it wasn't 24 hours. It was more like a week and a half. Bob showed up early so that he could run tests and make sure that he could actually do it.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

Perhaps. What is usually ignored in FFT analysis is the phase; only magnitude plots are normally shown. You need phase to correlate time differences. Since few are likely to correlate the phase with timing errors by inspection, a better measurement would be the impulse response. However, it should not be hard to present a plot of the phase response and group delay (the derivative of the phase, a simple mathematical operation for a computer).

If my reading is correct, using FFTs, we cannot be accurate in both frequency & phase - from wiki "When applied to filters, the result is that one cannot achieve high temporal resolution and frequency resolution at the same time; a concrete example are the resolution issues of the short-time Fourier transform – if one uses a wide window, one achieves good frequency resolution at the cost of temporal resolution, while a narrow window has the opposite trade-off." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So again, the point is that the most used tool in signal processing, FFTs are less resolving than our hearing in regards to determining the full audio envelope. Decomposing this into an individual elements, such as frequency, and then showing that indeed measurements can be more accurate than the ear, in frequency determination, is missing the point - in the case of hearing it would appear that the whole is very much more than the sum of the parts!

 

[Gregadd]

BTW, it wasn't 24 hours. It was more like a week and a half. Bob showed up early so that he could run tests and make sure that he could actually do it.

Tom

The legend always grows.

Greg

 

[jkeny]

If this study is correct, something to supplant FFT analysis is a possibility.

Yes, indeed & there are already analysis tools that provide more information than FFTs - "four techniques are the short time Fourier transform (STFT.m), the discrete wavelet (Haar) transform (DWT2.m), the continuous wavelet (Morlet) transform (CWVT.m), and the pseudo-Wigner distribution (PWD.m)."

But this particular information about hearing has been known since 1946 & yet we haven't really progressed much beyond a focus on frequency, it would appear?
"Actually, as noted by Dennis Gabor (best known for
his invention of holography, but who also worked in
audio) back in 1946, the ears actually analyse the
frequency content of sounds in time faster than
suggested by the uncertainty principle by a factor of
about 7. The seeming logical contradiction with the
fundamental theoretical limit of time/frequency
resolution is avoided by the ear’s use of a priori or
previously assumed knowledge of the nature of typical
sounds but at the expense of getting the analysis
‘wrong’ when sounds not of the assumed form occur."

 

[microstrip]

(...) None of your quotes from amp manufacturers say their products are "more neutral and faithful" than others. I couldn't find that in the web content of three of the top high-end SS amp manufacturers and, evidently, neither could you. Just to avoid going back and forth a couple of more times, those quotes don't imply it either. They talk of the quality of their products without putting them above competitive products.

Tim

PS: Bob? How was that quoting technique?

When you describe the sound of your amplifiers using the expressions I quoted you are intrinsically comparing yourself with others. And they clearly put them above others in the texts referred "annoyances previously ascribed", "a level of performance far beyond the “high-fidelity” conventions", "We compared it to the power amplifiers of our competitors". Do you thing they are addressing themselves?

BTW, congratulations, your quoting technique is improving.

 

[JackD201]

Yes, indeed & there are already analysis tools that provide more information than FFTs - "four techniques are the short time Fourier transform (STFT.m), the discrete wavelet (Haar) transform (DWT2.m), the continuous wavelet (Morlet) transform (CWVT.m), and the pseudo-Wigner distribution (PWD.m)."

But this particular information about hearing has been known since 1946 & yet we haven't really progressed much beyond a focus on frequency, it would appear?
"Actually, as noted by Dennis Gabor (best known for
his invention of holography, but who also worked in
audio) back in 1946, the ears actually analyse the
frequency content of sounds in time faster than
suggested by the uncertainty principle by a factor of
about 7. The seeming logical contradiction with the
fundamental theoretical limit of time/frequency
resolution is avoided by the ear’s use of a priori or
previously assumed knowledge of the nature of typical
sounds but at the expense of getting the analysis
‘wrong’ when sounds not of the assumed form occur."

Never heard of these. I must start living under a better rock.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When you describe the sound of your amplifiers using the expressions I quoted you are intrinsically comparing yourself with others. And they clearly put them above others in the texts referred "annoyances previously ascribed", "a level of performance far beyond the “high-fidelity” conventions", "We compared it to the power amplifiers of our competitors". Do you thing they are addressing themselves?

BTW, congratulations, your quoting technique is improving.

No, I think they're advertising, and other than "We compared it to the power amplifiers of our competitors," it's proud, strongly stated, probably a bit BS-infested, but not overly competitive, and nowhere I can see is anybody claiming their amps are more transparent or more accurate than everybody else (or anybody in particular). I'd give them a solid C+ on the humble and honest scale. And that's a great grade for any kind of marketing comunications . But we digress, and take things off-topic. Time to go perfect my quoting technique. Thanks.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Jkeny said: Let me help, if you are serious?

Serious as a heart attack.

Sorry? You know this how?

I trust my ears.

You have a simplistic view of what timing in audio actually means, I think!

Entirely possible.

Hmm, it's not jitter we are talking about!

Sorry, John, I assume you're always talking about jitter. My mistake.

I didn't ask a question - I suggested to read a paper that goes to the heart of something that is fundamental to this debate - can hearing reveal more than current measurements? Answer = yes (according to this study)! Are you not interested in this revelation?

[/QUOTE]

You can probably find a study to tell you anything, John. I'll look at it tonight if I have time, thanks.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

..... and nowhere I can see is anybody claiming their amps are more transparent or more accurate than everybody else (or anybody in particular).
Tim

Halcro? Soulution? Ye of the vanishing distortion credo?

 

[jkeny]

I trust my ears.

Good but how do you know what is a frequency issue Vs what is a time issue? Let me try to correct what I think is your misleading notion of timing - it's all about getting the transient aspects of music correct (the phase aspects), not about whether it is played back faster or slower which your example of a TT suggests to me.

Sorry, John, I assume you're always talking about jitter. My mistake.

Nah, I hope I'm not so one-dimensional

You can probably find a study to tell you anything, John. I'll look at it tonight if I have time, thanks.

Tim

No, I doubt it - there is a certain amount of peer reviewing before a paper is selected for publishing. This implies a certain selectivity in what's published so I doubt anything is possible. The point of publishing a scientific paper is that others can view the details of the experiment, evaluate your conclusions & premises underlying them, repeat the experiment or related experiments & offer contradictory conclusions, etc. It's the scientific process! Carver's challenge is interesting but too little detail in it to really draw many conclusions & it is specific & not generalisable, IMO.

 

[JackD201]

Good but how do you know what is a frequency issue Vs what is a time issue? Let me try to correct what I think is your misleading notion of timing - it's all about getting the transient aspects of music correct (the phase aspects), not about whether it is played back faster or slower which your example of a TT suggests to me.

Nah, I hope I'm not so one-dimensional



No, I doubt it - there is a certain amount of peer reviewing before a paper is selected for publishing. This implies a certain selectivity in what's published so I doubt anything is possible. The point of publishing a scientific paper is that others can view the details of the experiment, evaluate your conclusions & premises underlying them, repeat the experiment or related experiments & offer contradictory conclusions, etc. It's the scientific process! Carver's challenge is interesting but too little detail in it to really draw many conclusions & it is specific & not generalisable, IMO.

It's also a very recent publication. It will take some time for the review process to run its course. What I would like to point out is the language used by the REAL scientific community. They suggest but do not declare like pseudo-scientists do.

 

[Gregadd]

http://hometheaterreview.com/carver-silver-seven-mono-vacuum-tube-power-amplifier-reviewed/

'T' Is For Tiny
Earlier in this review, I mentioned Carver's 'Transfer Function Matching'. Quite obviously, the #1900 per pair, solid-state Silver Seven T monoblock is conceived to be the poor man's Silver
Seven, right down to the 'steam punk' styling. Somewhere, I read or heard that this amplifier was supposed to deliver '90% of the Silver Seven's performance for 10% of the cost'. Hmmm...

Rated at a 550W per side, the Silver Seven T is said to duplicate the 'transfer function of the Silver Seven'. Using Carver's Magnetic Field design circuitry, it actually pumps out more watts, can drive 2 ohm loads, weighs only 7.2kg per side (as opposed to the Silver Seven's 68kg), takes up floor space of only 370x292mm and looks just as wonderful. The controls are limited to an on/off switch at the front, while the rear sports the five-way posts I wish were on the Silver Seven.

This amplifier is notorious for having received one of the worst reviews ever published. I think I understand why, though the amp is by no means ready for display at Crufts. Basically, Carver was silly for hyping this as a poor man's 'Seven because even those who haven't heard the 'Sevens would therefore expect something so far beyond the 'norm' that the wee Carver would have had to perform miracles. Inevitably, the 'T lacks the absolute transparency, the delicate treble, the coherence and the authority in the lower registers of the 'Seven, but none would have minded so much had Carver not declared it to be a near-clone. Indeed, it has exceptional stage width, better-than-average depth, reasonable bass extension and -- with certain cone-type loudspeakers at least -- enough slam to suggest that its power rating is indicative of its performance.

However poorly it fared with the Diva, the 'T worked nicely enough with the Stages to make me wish that I hadn't (1) reviewed it side-by-side with the 'Seven and (2) heard Carver's claims. And I could only register dismay when the 'T failed to prove adequate when asked to drive the ATC SCM20 'mini' monitors. I'd rather not dredge up the hoary old debate which started with Carver's Cube of some 10 years back, with its astronomical power ratings and about as much guts as Charles Hawtrey. The 'T, also endowed with 'Magnetic Field' technology, also seems to perform less like a 500-watter than one would expect. It simply lacked the slam I associate with amplifiers from the Aragon 4004 on up...

 

[jkeny]

It's also a very recent publication. It will take some time for the review process to run its course. What I would like to point out is the language used by the REAL scientific community. They suggest but do not declare like pseudo-scientists do.

Indeed, that's true but to even get published means it has been through a review process that qualifies it as somewhat better than hearsay
To your second point about the language, (which reveals the mind-set) - I totally agree! It's easy to spot the pseudo-scientists by the insistence & goading often used on others & the gravitation towards simplistic, incomplete or specific tests in an attempt to "prove" a narrow, biased viewpoint.

I would fault one aspect of the language used in this paper in that it continually talks about the "algorithm used by the brain" rather than the algorithm that models a certain functionality of the brain. But I take it as a slip of the writer rather than that they actually mean it literally!

 

[treitz3]

..solid-state Silver Seven T monoblock is conceived to be the poor man's Silver Seven...Somewhere, I read or heard that this amplifier was supposed to deliver '90% of the Silver Seven's performance for 10% of the cost'. Hmmm...

I can tell you with complete certainty that the two amplifiers are nowhere close to each other. You might be able to weld your speaker cables together without damaging the amplifiers [with the 7t and 9t] but as far as the sound goes? Don't believe what you read. They are two completely different animals and they sound completely different under loads from 1ohm up. I can attest to that from a lot of experience with both on the same systems. No where close to each other. Especially when you tube roll the Silver 7's.

Tom

 

[Gregadd]

I can tell you with complete certainty that the two amplifiers are nowhere close to each other. You might be able to weld your speaker cables together without damaging the amplifiers [with the 7t and 9t] but as far as the sound goes? Don't believe what you read. They are two completely different animals and they sound completely different under loads from 1ohm up. I can attest to that from a lot of experience with both on the same systems. No where close to each other. Especially when you tube roll the Silver 7's.

Tom

Were they intended to be identical to the Silver Seven and Carver failed? Or were they just hype?

 

[treitz3]

Yes, they were intended to be identical....or as the marketing campaign stated "80 or 90%" there. IMO, it was just hype and I'm not alone with that observation. After hearing both, I can say that the Silver7's are a very, very nice sounding amplifier. Did I mention very nice? The 7t and the 9t SS amps I simply can not stand. With any speaker I have ever heard hooked up to them.

Tom

 

[Groucho]

Does anyone know how Carver's "Transfer Function Matching" was supposed to work? Crudely, I'm guessing that some amps tend towards 'even harmonics' and some 'odd' simply by non-linearities in their output, and could be replicated by slightly 'bending' the signal with... what? something very nasty like a hint of diode? Nowadays maybe you'd do it with a lookup table before a DAC..? But of course the reference amplifier's problems.. er sorry, musical signature, may not be constant with frequency, and signal composition. I'd just like to know how this was supposed to work in the pre-digital days.

 

[treitz3]

Were they intended to be identical to the Silver Seven and Carver failed? Or were they just hype?

Please allow me to clarify this just a little bit more, Gregadd. Bob could have done the same thing he did at the hotel that one night but you have to remember, he had a BOD that thwarted the end result often. Also, Bob told me once that there was no way that the amplifiers he had at the hotel could have ever been put out into production. So, what they heard, we will never hear. Then the marketing came and the rest was....

You decide.

Tom

 

[microstrip]

Yes, they were intended to be identical....or as the marketing campaign stated "80 or 90%" there. IMO, it was just hype and I'm not alone with that observation. After hearing both, I can say that the Silver7's are a very, very nice sounding amplifier. Did I mention very nice? The 7t and the 9t SS amps I simply can not stand. With any speaker I have ever heard hooked up to them.

Tom

I agree about the 9t solid state amplifiers. One of my bad audio experiences was listening to a pair of 9t's driving Sonus Faber Extrema's - the sound quality was very poor. So much we took the speakers and and inserted a pair of Proacs. I kept the same "metallic" sound, with a very controlled bass, even with a different preamplifier.

Periodically this same pair of 9t's shows for sale in advertisements - they seem to be prepared to last forever!

 

[NorthStar]

No, but someone said this:



None of your quotes from amp manufacturers say their products are "more neutral and faithful" than others. I couldn't find that in the web content of three of the top high-end SS amp manufacturers and, evidently, neither could you. Just to avoid going back and forth a couple of more times, those quotes don't imply it either. They talk of the quality of their products without putting them above competitive products.

Tim

PS: Bob? How was that quoting technique?

-----I think it's perfect! ...Do you think you can manage by keeping it that way?