Which companies have the deepest roots in science of audio?

[rblnr]

ATC is an impressive company that builds everything -- drivers, amps, preamps themselves. No voodoo, just a commitment to engineering and measurement. Their line ranges from small monitors to installations in auditoriums for companies such as Disney.

 

[RUR]

What amps will you be comparing them to? If you compare them to a moderately expensive Ayre or something with a lot of power like Conrad Johnson Premier 350, it is a no contest. Like I said, what was designed by a self-proclaimed "scientist" vs. a "con artist" like Charles Hansen or Conrad/ Johnson will sound lean, hard, and sterile.

Caesar, see here for a get-together comparing the Sanders monoblocks with CJ 350 driving ML Monoliths. My sense is that their observations can be ascribed primarily to tonal differences in the amplifiers, though the Sanders' better high-end performance may well be due to the ultra-high current design. Midrange variation isn't much of an issue for me, since I'm able to tweak to suit with a TacT preamp.

 

[RBFC]

What amps will you be comparing them to? If you compare them to a moderately expensive Ayre or something with a lot of power like Conrad Johnson Premier 350, it is a no contest. Like I said, what was designed by a self-proclaimed "scientist" vs. a "con artist" like Charles Hansen or Conrad/ Johnson will sound lean, hard, and sterile.

Let's try to refrain from calling folks "con artists", etc. Speak to the merits or problems with pieces of gear, not the character of the people. Thanks.

Lee

 

[caesar]

Caesar, see here for a get-together comparing the Sanders monoblocks with CJ 350 driving ML Monoliths. My sense is that their observations can be ascribed primarily to tonal differences in the amplifiers, though the Sanders' better high-end performance may well be due to the ultra-high current design. Midrange variation isn't much of an issue for me, since I'm able to tweak to suit with a TacT preamp.

Yes, the Sanders does have GREAT highs. But IMO, when we listen to music, we want to engage in the whole experience, not spot-light a certain part of the spectrum or notice a cough or a finger snap here and there which we may not have heard before.

To be fair to Sanders, his gear is good for what he charges for it. However, he does not make the ultimate amp. The "audiophile" brands do deliver more of the human-ness we are looking when we want to connect to the music.

Good Luck in your search, RUR. Enjoy the music.

 

[caesar]

Let's try to refrain from calling folks "con artists", etc. Speak to the merits or problems with pieces of gear, not the character of the people. Thanks.

Lee

Dear Sir,

You seem to be definitely mis-understanding my post, and possibly this thread. Many of the designers of audiophile brands have very deep backgrounds in physics, engineering, electronics, instrumentation, etc. As a result their gear sounds great and is raved about by individuals and magazines alike. However, if someone subscribes to the idea that audiophile cables and better parts make a sonic difference, the "scientists" seem to imply that these designers are con-artists and that audiophiles are a bunch of gulllible and psychologically-demented wackos.

So part of the discussion of applying scientific methods to audio gear needs to include different philosophies of design. I agree with you that character of individuals should be out of scope, and it has not been mentioned. But their ideas and philosophies should be discussed, IMO. Of course, simple listening tests of gear of the "scientist" designers vs. "audiophile" designers is very revealing.

Now you are the boss, so I will shut my mouth now.

 

[RBFC]

Dear Sir,

You seem to be definitely mis-understanding my post, and possibly this thread. Many of the designers of audiophile brands have very deep backgrounds in physics, engineering, electronics, instrumentation, etc. As a result their gear sounds great and is raved about by individuals and magazines alike. However, if someone subscribes to the idea that audiophile cables and better parts make a sonic difference, the "scientists" seem to imply that these designers are con-artists and that audiophiles are a bunch of gulllible and psychologically-demented wackos.

So part of the discussion of applying scientific methods to audio gear needs to include different philosophies of design. I agree with you that character of individuals should be out of scope, and it has not been mentioned. But their ideas and philosophies should be discussed, IMO. Of course, simple listening tests of gear of the "scientist" designers vs. "audiophile" designers is very revealing.

Now you are the boss, so I will shut my mouth now.

No need to shut your mouth, caesar! We've been striving to hold our discussions and dialogues to a higher standard here, so we want all members to carefully consider how they word their posts. I understood what you meant in that post, but would rather stay on topic than to create an opportunity for either "side" to feel slandered. No problem, let's just move on.

Lee

 

[caesar]

No need to shut your mouth, caesar! We've been striving to hold our discussions and dialogues to a higher standard here, so we want all members to carefully consider how they word their posts. I understood what you meant in that post, but would rather stay on topic than to create an opportunity for either "side" to feel slandered. No problem, let's just move on.

Lee

I'm with you. I think resorting to ad-hominem attacks is proof that one has lost an argument. But I'm more intersted in discussing ideas and experiences. If people's feelings get hurt, it's not intentional and it's not personal.

 

[Ethan Winer]

if someone subscribes to the idea that audiophile cables and better parts make a sonic difference, the "scientists" seem to imply that these designers are con-artists and that audiophiles are a bunch of gulllible and psychologically-demented wackos.

The only time I question a vendor's honesty is when they make claims that cannot be backed up. If a vendor says their use of $20 capacitors gives lower distortion, then I expect to see distortion measurements as proof. Same for "better" speaker cables etc. Don't tell me a product is better because of the parts used. Prove it with real data instead of flowery prose. Sure, good parts can sound better than bad parts, but these days most "normal" parts are fine assuming the design is competent. Just throwing money at a product by using expensive parts is not likely to improve the sound.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

"... most "normal" parts are fine..." I am not sure what that means. And I don't expect Ethan to go through the tolerances for every part used in audio equipment. I am just as sure that premium parts result in improved sound, as I am that there is plenty of overkill out there. If money is important to you, there are plenty of bargains out there. If you are pushing the envelope, e.g. direct heated triodes, expect to pay for it.

 

[Speedskater]

"... most "normal" parts are fine..." I am not sure what that means.

What I thought it meant was:
Any part in any circuit needs to meet several engineering parameters. So once we find parts that meet these parameters, we don't expect that more expensive parts will add anything (except cost) to the product.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"... most "normal" parts are fine..." I am not sure what that means.

What I thought it meant was:
Any part in any circuit needs to meet several engineering parameters. So once we find parts that meet these parameters, we don't expect that more expensive parts will add anything (except cost) to the product.

Oh, don't go confusing the subject with good sense.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

"Ah, theres the rub. What is "normal" and what is "fine?" Todays excellence is tomorrows' standard." Better is in fact the enemy of good."

 

[Gregadd]

Oh, don't go confusing the subject with good sense.

Tim

Careful Tim.

 

[microstrip]

How do we separate "Normal" from "Non normal parts"? According to cost, availability or marketing strategy?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How do we separate "Normal" from "Non normal parts"? According to cost, availability or marketing strategy?

I think Speedskater already supplied an excellent answer:

Any part in any circuit needs to meet several engineering parameters. So once we find parts that meet these parameters, we don't expect that more expensive parts will add anything (except cost) to the product.

Of course we can, and probably will, argue for days over what it means. Personally I think he pretty well defined the point above which we will venture into what Greg called "overkill."

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Let's start with two products that have an impressive set of stats and parts IMO. The Atma-Sphere MA-2 and Harmon Kardon 990HK. If I remember correctly the HK has a phono preamp and a dac with room correction. The Atma -Sphere is about ten times the price with enough tubes to heat a living room. Both regard there specs as a marketing tool. I say that because they are included in their adds.
Now while many may regard the HK as overkill it wont draw any any accusations of price gouging.. Yet the Atma-Spheres' price and tube complement is bound to raise a few eyebrows. Indeed the Atma-Sphere offers more premium parts as an option.
I would suggest both companies claim to "push the envelope" with vastly different approaches via market strategy, scientific research, and financial strength. Few would doubt both companies are on the cutting edge of amplifier design.

 

[Gregadd]

Yeah, I can recall the hits I've taken for arguing sighted listening tests are "just fine" for "normal" equipment evaluations.

 

[caesar]

The only time I question a vendor's honesty is when they make claims that cannot be backed up. If a vendor says their use of $20 capacitors gives lower distortion, then I expect to see distortion measurements as proof. Same for "better" speaker cables etc. Don't tell me a product is better because of the parts used. Prove it with real data instead of flowery prose. Sure, good parts can sound better than bad parts, but these days most "normal" parts are fine assuming the design is competent. Just throwing money at a product by using expensive parts is not likely to improve the sound.

--Ethan

Are you open to the idea that some parts may measure identically yet sound different? Or 2 digital filters designed (at the same cost and same engineering rigor) to produce different sounds?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's start with two products that have an impressive set of stats and parts IMO. The Atma-Sphere MA-2 and Harmon Kardon 990HK.

I haven't run into anything about the audiophile parts in the HK 990. Do you have any links?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I''m still learning about the HK 990. I never said anything about "audiophile parts" in either amp. I did say the the Atma-Sphere offered more premium parts as an option. Maybe that's where you went astray. Interestingly the Harmon Kardon website offers much more information than it did when I first discovered the product.
http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-US/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?PID=HK 990

I said an "impressive set of stats and parts." If you look at the insides you will see Siemens caps and very impressive dual toroidal transformers. They claim low negative feedback. My point is you can't get those kind of stats from ok parts and a casual approach.