Preference vs. audibility - please keep them separate.

[Groucho]

the counter argument to that then is; why did Quad then bother to engineer-develop the current-dumping amplifier design
After all it should not even needed to be developed going by that quote.

It would still have been worth doing because the current dumping design obviated the need for any pots or setting up, and of course the requirement for "adequate quality" varies depending on the speaker load. Maybe the Quad amp extended "adequate quality" to a wider variety of speakers, for example..?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
the counter argument to that then is; why did Quad then bother to engineer-develop the current-dumping amplifier design
After all it should not even needed to be developed going by that quote.
Devialet are the ones who really perfected that design, but without original Quad theory-design I am not sure it would had been done.

Cheers
Orb

And it's a great counter-argument. I'm not saying "all amps sound alike," but that statement, with a couple of minor qualifiers, does. And that statement, the one with it, about cables, and a few other subjects around here are lightning rods in what, currently, is a bit of an electrical storm.

For my part, I don't think all amps sound alike. I think amps chosen or designed for, then connected directly to specific individual drivers, sound audibly, significantly better. But I've never been able to test that belief with blind listening, so it could just be expectation bias.

All of the above, I believe, speaks to this part of the statement about Quad's engineering approach: "when used within their capabilities." I don't think that is an insignificant qualifier.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

We still have not addressed the issue . If it;s not audible, how can you prefer it? If the neighborhood teenager prefers the booming system in his car, that's ok. We know he clearly is hearing something.we still are back where started. Do these cables really make a difference?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We still have not addressed the issue . If it;s not audible, how can you prefer it? If the neighborhood teenager prefers the booming system in his car, that's ok. We know he clearly is hearing something.we still are back where started. Do these cables really make a difference?

I think we've addressed that question many, many times. You just don't believe the answer.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

IMHO, Quad and Peter Walker are being misrepresented in this debate. Peter Walker (or anyone on belief of Quad, as far as I know) never said that all amplifiers of adequate quality sound the same. He said that if two amplifiers are found to sound different someone should be able to develop measurements that show why. Peter Walker was a pragmatic man - when asked about the loudness limitations of his excellent electrostatic speakers he just answered something like "They are good enough for 95% of our customers, we can not please everyone".

It is all written in his own words in the excellent book by Ken Kessler's "Quad: The Closest Approach". I highly recommend it to anyone - it is a fascinating book.

I had the pleasure of meeting him twice, once in a show in a room that the settled and tweaked himself (all Quad gear with a Pink Triangle turntable) and it sounded really great with his chosen LPs. Even the scale was impressive. If I listened only to opera and chamber music, perhaps I would own a Quad system.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

IMHO, Quad and Peter Walker are being misrepresented in this debate. Peter Walker (or anyone on belief of Quad, as far as I know) never said that all amplifiers of adequate quality sound the same. He said that if two amplifiers are found to sound different someone should be able to develop measurements that show why. Peter Walker was a pragmatic man - when asked about the loudness limitations of his excellent electrostatic speakers he just answered something like "They are good enough for 95% of our customers, we can not please everyone".

It is all written in his own words in the excellent book by Ken Kessler's "Quad: The Closest Approach". I highly recommend it to anyone - it is a fascinating book.

I had the pleasure of meeting him twice, once in a show in a room that the settled and tweaked himself (all Quad gear with a Pink Triangle turntable) and it sounded really great with his chosen LPs. Even the scale was impressive. If I listened only to opera and chamber music, perhaps I would own a Quad system.

completely possible for my part, micro, I got that line from Wikipedia. A wonderful resource most of the time, but not always accurate. It appears, however, that if he is being misrepresented here, we are far from alone. He is being widely misrepresented to have said exactly the same thing in every misrepresentation. Seems odd...

https://www.google.com/#q=Peter+Walker+all+amplifiers+sound+the+same

Tim

 

[microstrip]

completely possible for my part, micro, I got that line from Wikipedia. A wonderful resource most of the time, but not always accurate. It appears, however, that if he is being misrepresented here, we are far from alone. He is being widely misrepresented to have said exactly the same thing in every misrepresentation. Seems odd...

https://www.google.com/#q=Peter+Walker+all+amplifiers+sound+the+same

Tim

Yes, as far as I understand people extrapolate from his original comments about the Quad 303 versus 405 amplifier when the 405 was launched, but his comment addressed just these two amplifiers. At that time he was asked about the sound difference between the two very different designs and answered that used adequately they would sound the same.

There is a large difference between "sounding adequate" and "sounding the same". There is also another broad and nice concept that is often used to create vague statements "competently designed".

Wkipedia and Google are great for many subjects, but concerning high-end you we to have tor read the sources.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, as far as I understand people extrapolate from his original comments about the Quad 303 versus 405 amplifier when the 405 was launched, but his comment addressed just these two amplifiers. At that time he was asked about the sound difference between the two very different designs and answered that used adequately they would sound the same.

There is a large difference between "sounding adequate" and "sounding the same". There is also another broad and nice concept that is often used to create vague statements "competently designed".

Wkipedia and Google are great for many subjects, but concerning high-end you we to have tor read the sources.

It's a dramatic statement from an amp designer, even if only referring to his own amps. I don't doubt that the community ran too far with it. If I see someone of Walker's quality and knowledge saying something like "adequate quality," I don't take it as vague. I take it to mean a design that, when operating within its limitations, will produce a signal audibly linear and free of distortion. I understand that you and others believe you are hearing much that is not or cannot be measured, but people who make these kinds of statements do not, and many of them, perhaps even peter walker, believe(d) that within their parameters, amplifiers do sound very much alike. I don't know that's true of walker and his book is not on my reading list. So it will remain unsettled for me unless you'd like to give me a quote that settles it.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

IMHO, Quad and Peter Walker are being misrepresented in this debate. Peter Walker (or anyone on belief of Quad, as far as I know) never said that all amplifiers of adequate quality sound the same. He said that if two amplifiers are found to sound different someone should be able to develop measurements that show why. Peter Walker was a pragmatic man - when asked about the loudness limitations of his excellent electrostatic speakers he just answered something like "They are good enough for 95% of our customers, we can not please everyone".

It is all written in his own words in the excellent book by Ken Kessler's "Quad: The Closest Approach". I highly recommend it to anyone - it is a fascinating book.

Just flicking through my copy, and, you know, I don't think he's being misrepresented. There are a few references where it more-or-less says that you can't hear a difference between amplifiers until they go into overload conditions and that is where audible differences emerge. The interview with Mike Albinson is very much in this vein also. Unless you can find a specific contradiction of this in there somewhere?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know what he wrote. Here's what he said, in 1978:

TAA: Have you any opinions you'd share on the relative merits of distortion tests,
such as harmonic, two-tone IM, transient IM, or slew rate limiting, as clues to
amplifier quality?

PW: An amplifier should, within its limits of voltage and rate of change of voltage,
(which is slew rate limiting) if you keep within those two it should be very much
better than any program material. These are the things that are measured at .01
per cent or .05 per cent. But what is listened to is usually a program with 2 or 3
per cent distortion in the first place. That's the least you can get on records,
tapes, and such things. Listening tests are usually not done in this region of .01
percent distortion. I'm quite convinced within that range the amplifier is just as
perfect as you like to make it. It's quite possible to put 50 amplifiers in cascade,
each one into a load, potted down into the next one, and to listen to the 50th one
or to listen to the first one, and the sound will be virtually the same. So I think you
can make an amplifier just as good as you like, and no more different than a
piece of wire. But where they vary, when these tests are done, are a whole lot of
areas. To start with, you can compare one amplifier with a bass cut-off of 20 Hz
and another one that goes right down to DC. If you've got a program with a bit of
fluffing going on at 5 Hz or so, the speaker cone in one case will be moving, and
in the other case it won't be moving, so the sound from the speaker will be
different. This isn't really a condemnation of the amplifier, it's that they shouldn't
have this 5 Hz stuff there in the first place. So if you compare an amplifier with a
straight wire, you've really got to make the straight wire have the same
bandwidth as the amplifier, and the same terminating impedance as the
amplifier. Once you do all these things, then the amps will be just as good as the
straight wire. The peripheral effects are what get people into trouble. You can
see why you find these differences in amplifiers. You can always find them. If
people test two amplifiers and say, "These sound different," there's no magic in
it. Spend two days, maybe a whole week in the lab, and you find out exactly why
they're different and you can write the whole thing down in purely practical,
physical terms. This is why these two sound different, and the cause is usually
peripheral effects. It is not really a case of good or bad amplifiers, it's that the
termination impedances are wrong, or something of that sort.

This part, not particularly related to the current discussion, is interesting input into our on-going discussions of the impact of content out of the audible range:

To start with, you can compare one amplifier with a bass cut-off of 20 Hz
and another one that goes right down to DC. If you've got a program with a bit of
fluffing going on at 5 Hz or so, the speaker cone in one case will be moving, and
in the other case it won't be moving, so the sound from the speaker will be
different. This isn't really a condemnation of the amplifier, it's that they shouldn't
have this 5 Hz stuff there in the first place

It seems I've found a new audio hero.

ON EDIT: By the way, I still don't believe all amplifiers sound the same. I do, however, believe that quite a few of them, even very expensive ones with admirable "build quality" and not of adquate sonic quality, and that very many of them are often listened to operating outside of their limits. Usually as a result of amateur system-building.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

two cars of the same weight ,horsepower,and tiws will pretty much perform the same. The problem is what can you do wi ththat statement?

Let's take that car and use it to commute.
Then put it an off road rally
The put it in a NASCAR Race.
Then a formula 1. race course

The car will not change but it's abilit to handle the conditions will vary drastically.

For even more varaitions add 3 passengers.

 

[Orb]

I think the safest response with counter is that he felt the need to develop the current-dumping architecture that is used in same situation as equally comparable amplifiers, hence if no differences when adequately used (otherwise buy a larger spec-designed amp) then the point in developing current-dumping was meaningless,
I think that quote and others related to it is more from a company focus narrative rather than anything else, because it would be very difficult to justify spending time developing and patenting current-dumping technology when there were very good amps using traditional concepts and measuring well.

Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

I don't know what he wrote. Here's what he said, in 1978:



This part, not particularly related to the current discussion, is interesting input into our on-going discussions of the impact of content out of the audible range:



It seems I've found a new audio hero.

ON EDIT: By the way, I still don't believe all amplifiers sound the same. I do, however, believe that quite a few of them, even very expensive ones with admirable "build quality" and not of adquate sonic quality, and that very many of them are often listened to operating outside of their limits. Usually as a result of amateur system-building.

Tim

Nothing that you have posted says PW stated that all amplifiers sound the same. This is the key point. Bur surely you are free to go on speculating...

 

[Robh3606]

By the way, I still don't believe all amplifiers sound the same. I do, however, believe that quite a few of them, even very expensive ones with admirable "build quality" and not of adquate sonic quality, and that very many of them are often listened to operating outside of their limits. Usually as a result of amateur system-building.

Hello Tim

Should that and be an are. Are you saying that the differences heard are mostly due to misuse??

Rob

 

[Groucho]

Nothing that you have posted says PW stated that all amplifiers sound the same. This is the key point. Bur surely you are free to go on speculating...

I think that's playing with semantics. If we take this statement:

It's quite possible to put 50 amplifiers in cascade, each one into a load, potted down into the next one, and to listen to the 50th one or to listen to the first one, and the sound will be virtually the same. So I think you can make an amplifier just as good as you like, and no more different than a piece of wire.

While you can't find the actual words "All amplifiers sound the same" in that statement, what you can find is the sentiment that 50 amplifiers in series sounds the same as one. And that amplifiers can be made to sound no more different than a piece of wire. Inherently he is also saying that all pieces of wire sound the same, of course Technically, you might not find that he is saying that his or anyone else in particular's amplifiers sound like pieces of wire within that statement, but I think that is the spirit of what he is saying.

You make it sound as though it is a terrible accusation, but I think it is fine. My Quad amplifier is a desirable object, well built, and if it has a certain no-nonsense philosophy behind it, then that adds to the desirability. When a celebrated boutique amplifier designer suggests that there are things beyond his understanding - which is what the "measurements don't tell us everything" approach says - then I begin to have doubts about what he thinks he is doing and the choices he is making. Further, if he expresses a belief in so-called quantum devices improving the sound of his amplifier, again without knowing why, my doubts increase further!

 

[Groucho]

... it would be very difficult to justify spending time developing and patenting current-dumping technology when there were very good amps using traditional concepts and measuring well.

Unless it was an improvement in one or more of the following areas:
- cheaper to make
- smaller or lighter
- more reliable
- easier to set up
- absence of drift
- more stable into difficult loads

The idea that nothing new is designed without an absolute improvement in end performance seems... naive..?

Other manufacturers might also include fads, changing aesthetics, built-in obsolescence etc. to encourage customers to part with money but I don't think Quad have ever been accused of that! As the book points out, their models remained largely unchanged for many years.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello Tim

Should that and be an are. Are you saying that the differences heard are mostly due to misuse??

Rob

It should be an are, yes. I'm speculating, as micro said, the often the differences are due to amplifiers that are being operated outside of their ideal parameters -- not enough power for the load, mismatche impedance, etc. And sometimes, though I certainly hope not often, the differences are due to less than adequate quality - they have audible noise, distortion or lack of linearity.

Then of course there's also magic.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nothing that you have posted says PW stated that all amplifiers sound the same. This is the key point. Bur surely you are free to go on speculating...

No, not exactly...

It's quite possible to put 50 amplifiers in cascade, each one into a load, potted down into the next one, and to listen to the 50th one or to listen to the first one, and the sound will be virtually the same. So I think you can make an amplifier just as good as you like, and no more different than a piece of wire.

You want to give me an interpretation of that which says something significantly different?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I think that's playing with semantics. If we take this statement:

While you can't find the actual words "All amplifiers sound the same" in that statement, what you can find is the sentiment that 50 amplifiers in series sounds the same as one. And that amplifiers can be made to sound no more different than a piece of wire. Inherently he is also saying that all pieces of wire sound the same, of course Technically, you might not find that he is saying that his or anyone else in particular's amplifiers sound like pieces of wire within that statement, but I think that is the spirit of what he is saying.

You make it sound as though it is a terrible accusation, but I think it is fine. My Quad amplifier is a desirable object, well built, and if it has a certain no-nonsense philosophy behind it, then that adds to the desirability. When a celebrated boutique amplifier designer suggests that there are things beyond his understanding - which is what the "measurements don't tell us everything" approach says - then I begin to have doubts about what he thinks he is doing and the choices he is making. Further, if he expresses a belief in so-called quantum devices improving the sound of his amplifier, again without knowing why, my doubts increase further!

The argument that if you can put 50 amplifier in series and it if they sound the same as a single one you got perfection is flawed - if just one of them kills something in the original signal, the others will just have an easier work. But yes, until I have the time to look for the PW statement we are free to imagine what was the spirit of his old interview.

The internet is full of misconceptions - do you also believe that there were no listening tests in the development of the ESL63? It was also the spirit of a famous statement.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The argument that if you can put 50 amplifier in series and it if they sound the same as a single one you got perfection is flawed - if just one of them kills something in the original signal, the others will just have an easier work. But yes, until I have the time to look for the PW statement we are free to imagine what was the spirit of his old interview.

The internet is full of misconceptions - do you also believe that there were no listening tests in the development of the ESL63? It was also the spirit of a famous statement.

Your capacity for denial is boundless. Here. The entire interview. I'm sure you'll find a way to make it say what you need to hear: http://reocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6722/pwint1.txt

Tim