I just read an interesting interview from 2014 with Bruno Putzeys, the man behind the hypex amps and the Kii Three, of course.
part 1: http://www.soundstageultra.com/inde...s-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-one
part 2: http://www.soundstageultra.com/inde...s-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-two
Putzeys talks about his amplifiers, his approach in general, etc. What was particularly interesting to me, was that Putzeys seems to take your average audiophile's listening impressions at face value. Never mind the blind tests showing that people mostly can't distinguish between amps, that some amps just are better on paper and so on - he actually seems to think that some of the "golden ears" were right:
"...I came to realize that feedback [in amplifiers] had unjustly been given a bad rap in audio, and that you could actually use it to your advantage in terms of subjective sonic result.Of course, the next question is how to explain that when so many people disagree with that point of view. You can’t just go around saying, “Hey, I’ve made a negative-feedback amplifier that sounds great, so you are all wrong.” You have to accept that, for those people who say they tried feedback and it didn’t sound good, they had real experiences -- they didn’t make it up or start a religion. People have really, honestly heard what they have heard, and what they heard didn’t sound good".
He also claims that if there are listening experiences that can't properly be explained by "textbook theory", then that theory is probably incomplete:
"...the people who say that “in theory” it shouldn’t matter, they just look at one small corner in one particular textbook, where it doesn’t mention all these other things. Usually, where theory and practice deviate, it just means that your theory hasn’t gotten into enough theoretical detail. So far, I have not yet bumped into anything in terms of audible differences that I, or anyone with me, could hear that did not at some point connect with established theory and known physics -- by which I mean ordinary street-level physics, none of your fancy quantum stuff. You really do not need to invent laws of physics from a parallel universe to explain things. And you don’t have to excuse yourself to say that theory does not connect with practice. If you look close enough, you will find [the connection]. If practice and theory seem to deviate, you better have a sharp look at your theory."
Which is what he did, he claims.
He also claims that some of the experiences people have with "matching" etc might also be real - it's just that they got the explanations all wrong:
"Many of these compatibility issues -- where people say this preamp sounds good with that CD player -- some of these mysterious interactions actually happen through the power wiring, and sometimes even through direct coupling from a power cable into a speaker cable. This, then, does to an extent explain why people put such an inordinate effort into speaker cables, and cables in general. All I can say is that once you realize you are looking at these crosstalk issues as one of the reasons for a sonic difference, you might want to do some more targeted experimenting, because I believe most cable manufacturers just construct things and listen to them without really understanding what’s behind them."
In a way, this goes back to the thread about blindtesting procedures. Is Putzeys right that audiophiles have had these very real experiences, and that it reflected back on something objective, that it's not all placebophilia? I'm divided on this. Now Putzeys' preferred solution to these things has nothing to do with subjectivism of course. He tries to find rational solutions. Of course, he has vested interests in claiming that his own products actually solve all these problems the subjectivists thought they had. But still. I'm not entirely sure what to think.
Any thoughts?
part 1: http://www.soundstageultra.com/inde...s-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-one
part 2: http://www.soundstageultra.com/inde...s-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-two
Putzeys talks about his amplifiers, his approach in general, etc. What was particularly interesting to me, was that Putzeys seems to take your average audiophile's listening impressions at face value. Never mind the blind tests showing that people mostly can't distinguish between amps, that some amps just are better on paper and so on - he actually seems to think that some of the "golden ears" were right:
"...I came to realize that feedback [in amplifiers] had unjustly been given a bad rap in audio, and that you could actually use it to your advantage in terms of subjective sonic result.Of course, the next question is how to explain that when so many people disagree with that point of view. You can’t just go around saying, “Hey, I’ve made a negative-feedback amplifier that sounds great, so you are all wrong.” You have to accept that, for those people who say they tried feedback and it didn’t sound good, they had real experiences -- they didn’t make it up or start a religion. People have really, honestly heard what they have heard, and what they heard didn’t sound good".
He also claims that if there are listening experiences that can't properly be explained by "textbook theory", then that theory is probably incomplete:
"...the people who say that “in theory” it shouldn’t matter, they just look at one small corner in one particular textbook, where it doesn’t mention all these other things. Usually, where theory and practice deviate, it just means that your theory hasn’t gotten into enough theoretical detail. So far, I have not yet bumped into anything in terms of audible differences that I, or anyone with me, could hear that did not at some point connect with established theory and known physics -- by which I mean ordinary street-level physics, none of your fancy quantum stuff. You really do not need to invent laws of physics from a parallel universe to explain things. And you don’t have to excuse yourself to say that theory does not connect with practice. If you look close enough, you will find [the connection]. If practice and theory seem to deviate, you better have a sharp look at your theory."
Which is what he did, he claims.
He also claims that some of the experiences people have with "matching" etc might also be real - it's just that they got the explanations all wrong:
"Many of these compatibility issues -- where people say this preamp sounds good with that CD player -- some of these mysterious interactions actually happen through the power wiring, and sometimes even through direct coupling from a power cable into a speaker cable. This, then, does to an extent explain why people put such an inordinate effort into speaker cables, and cables in general. All I can say is that once you realize you are looking at these crosstalk issues as one of the reasons for a sonic difference, you might want to do some more targeted experimenting, because I believe most cable manufacturers just construct things and listen to them without really understanding what’s behind them."
In a way, this goes back to the thread about blindtesting procedures. Is Putzeys right that audiophiles have had these very real experiences, and that it reflected back on something objective, that it's not all placebophilia? I'm divided on this. Now Putzeys' preferred solution to these things has nothing to do with subjectivism of course. He tries to find rational solutions. Of course, he has vested interests in claiming that his own products actually solve all these problems the subjectivists thought they had. But still. I'm not entirely sure what to think.
Any thoughts?
