Not just better engineers, though it does of course need them. But also better investors, marketers and visionaries.
The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
micro, I don't think there is that much difference between a guitar amp and a high-end audio amp. Both are charged with amplifying the signal and both use similar topologies to do so.
In fact, you may remember that the guitar amp manufacturer- Mesa Boogie, came out with a fairly well respected tube audio amp a few years back. The difference is how the amps proceed into distortion and when. The guitar amp is valued for its distortion characteristics, the audio amp....well not so much
In fact, you may remember that the guitar amp manufacturer- Mesa Boogie, came out with a fairly well respected tube audio amp a few years back. The difference is how the amps proceed into distortion and when. The guitar amp is valued for its distortion characteristics, the audio amp....well not so much
As usual you miss what is the fundamental objective of high end - sound reproduction with high quality - and focus on the accessory. IMHO you do not need better engineers - we have very good ones in the business - you need more fundamental research in the psychoacoustics of electronics devices. You need better systematic knowledge about the effects of very small distortions on the perception of reproduced music. Surely stating that these differences are minimal and only matter to a fringe of lunatics who do not mind paying a lot for a small preference is not a good help to this study.
Do you think that people who design modelers use fairy powder? They manage to do it because the effects they want to reproduce are simple to measure or the signals they manipulate are of limited scope. You should read the Devialet approach to designing an high end amplifier - they combine a class D and a class A amplifier to get the Musicality of the Class A (voltage control) and efficiency of the class D (current output). Engineers are working hard!
(...) The difference is how the amps proceed into distortion and when. The guitar amp is valued for its distortion characteristics, the audio amp....well not so much
And you still think there is not a large difference?
What must an amplifier do to be different?
This rather does depend on which hypothesis you favour for why class A sounds musical. One possible one is that its due to the lack of switching of the output devices. If so, then adding a class D stage destroys that. OTOH it could be down to the invariance of the power supply with output level - and again, if that's the reason combining classes A & D blows that advantage away too. I'm by no means claiming that exhausts all the possibilities but can you think of others? Perhaps a third one is that this hybrid A & D design is rather like Quad's 'Current Dumping' where the A stage corrects for the errors in the B stage. But current dumping hasn't had a good SQ rep to my knowledge.
Indeed they are, but is the smartness in the engineering here or in the marketing?
As usual you miss what is the fundamental objective of high end - sound reproduction with high quality - and focus on the accessory. IMHO you do not need better engineers - we have very good ones in the business - you need more fundamental research in the psychoacoustics of electronics devices. You need better systematic knowledge about the effects of very small distortions on the perception of reproduced music. Surely stating that these differences are minimal and only matter to a fringe of lunatics who do not mind paying a lot for a small preference is not a good help to this study.
You should read the Devialet approach to designing an high end amplifier - they combine a class D and a class A amplifier to get the Musicality of the Class A (voltage control) and efficiency of the class D (current output). Engineers are working hard!
And as usual, you've dismissed true innovation as an accessory because it isn't "high-end."
FWIW, I think the audio industries have intuitively understood the psychoacoustics of small distortions and designed for them for decades.
There is nothing simple about audio modeling. They are able to do it because there is a huge market for products based on the technology, and big companies with deep pockets are able to invest millions in R&D and years in refinement and continued development. The technology is focused on the pro music market because that is a large, receptive market that will pay for that R&D. And while I'm sure that the technology could serve audiophiles, it probably won't. Not because they wouldn't accept it (though few would), but because they are so few and they are alone in their desire to listen to the different sounds of hifi amps. Most people would want just one model -- the one with the least distortion. Not much of a market there.
Amplifier modeling would, in the end, be wasted on audio reproduction, as the vast majority of music lovers/listeners/consumers are uninterested in the small differences between amplifiers if they're aware of them at all. Modeling will come to audio reproduction, I think. But it will probably be modeling space. First stops? Probably much better venue simulations for surround sound and...and this would be appealing to many millions of music lovers -- getting headphones out of our heads.
The "better engineers" remark was flippant. I can't resist a punchline.
Tim
I have and it works. Too bad they have not succeeded in licensing the technology for a wider audience.
Can you tell me where is the true innovation in your sentence I was addressing ?
But my main question was that it seemed me you were assuming that since it was possible to model professional tube amplifiers with very characteristic sounds it should be possible NOW to model Krells and Audio Research amplifiers, or any high-end amplifier using a similar approach. My comments addressed this view.
Good innovation in sound reproduction should carry some value - not just be different.
Again you fail to understand that the small differences can result in large differences in terms of listening enjoyment.
And the repeated argument of the real interest of millions of music lovers is worth considering for a McDonald manager who knows that McDonald's is the leading global foodservice retailer with more than 34,000 local restaurants serving nearly 69 million people in 119 countries each day. We were debating high quality sound reproduction and high-end! This paragraph can be considered as a punchline.
Good points - the sentence I wrote was partially quoted from the Devialet site. It is a mix of an oversimplified circuit description and marketing. But unhappily it is not possible to separate them in manufacturer literature - in depth technical reports do not sell products and could be used by the competition!
I think (but I could be wrong) the comment about the vast majority of music lovers/listeners/consumers refers to the financial incentive for the product to be developed, built and brought to market, not to any inherent superiority about what that "vast majority" believe compared to what the few (i.e., audiophiles) believe.
And you still think there is not a large difference?
Perhaps have a completely different type of circuit
. LIke I said, the basic topology of the amps is in fact very similar. I'm NOT saying that they are EXACTLY the same, but there are numerous similarities based on the circuits, etc. ( Particularly applicable to the tube amps)I'm splitting hairs here a little micro, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
Think of all the music you guys could have been listening in the time you've spent arguing about this...
Can I assume you are typing while you are listening to the Aida's?
Yes, but I'd rather just listen to them then argue about minutiae....
Mikey's Mikey. While I don't agree with him on everything, I've heard, owned or reviewed a lot of the same gear he has and I think he gets to the heart of things pretty well. And though I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him, I do admire the passion for analog and music in general.
It's always really easy to say, "I don't agree with that" or "I wouldn't do it that way." Much easier than it is to actually go and create something.
Mikey's Mikey. While I don't agree with him on everything, I've heard, owned or reviewed a lot of the same gear he has and I think he gets to the heart of things pretty well. And though I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him, I do admire the passion for analog and music in general.
It's always really easy to say, "I don't agree with that" or "I wouldn't do it that way." Much easier than it is to actually go and create something.
I agree with you about Mikey - I enjoy his prose. But please note that we are not always debating Mikey in this thread - the frequent allowed thread drifts are nice aspect of WBF.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Interesting, but as long as it is a box connected to a massage chair and packaged with a pair of Stax, it will be nothing more than a tiny niche product focused on a rather small niche market (the "high-end"), most of which won't be interested either in headphones or audio processing.
A small first step on the road, perhaps, until someone with deep pockets engineers around its patents, puts it on a chip, and licenses it into every AV receiver and iPod on the planet. There is a small market of serious audiophile headphone listeners out there, but they have headphones. And they won't readily suffer being told what's good. It's like selling a high-end amp, but only packaged with a specific pair of speakers, not because they have some special synergy with the amp, but because the amp manufacturer just thinks they're best. Imagine how well that would do with this little microcosm of the high end.
Possibly a great product, but a suicidal business plan.
Tim