Audiophiles, generally don't like class D amps!

[TLEDDY]

“So much music, So little time.”

Yesterday, my professional sound equipment engineer replaced some inexpensive speaker cable that had developed a “hum” with Blue Jean cables. I sat and listened, undisturbed, to Mozart and other classical pieces. The equipment is powered in part by Class D amplification, rather than the tubes and Class A and AB solid state in my past.

After the session, I found a feeling of melancholy that I did not understand - it was a thoroughly enjoyable time, so why?

Fast forward to tonight and my usual wont to visit ASR, I found the above comment from Sal1950 that explained it to me:

“So much music, So little time.”

Historically, for most of the last 70 years, my music collection was finite, vinyl, CD, tape - physical media. Now, thanks to streaming, the quantity available approaches infinity (I apologize for the hyperbole).

Thank you Sal1950 for your usual erudite posts! Consider the phrase purloined!

Tillman

 

[ahofer]

An old rely by my buddy @restorer-john here but still he hits the nail on the head.
With power amps (ignoring the snake-oil and marketing BS), we all knew that within certain limits looking into a A/B amp a BIG hokin transformer and supply cap's told us a lot about what the amp might be able to deliver in the way of muscle. When I look in todays D amps, having little more components than the 6 transistor radio I marveled over in 1966, it's hard to swallow the truth of it's real world capability. To tell the honest truth, that's a big part of why I'm still running a stack of 30yo Adcom amps here and haven't moved on to something else. I do know that when one of these guys lets the smoke out they'll be replaced with something most likely from Buckeye.
But still that will be a hard pill to swallow. "what a little wimp LOL"

Yup. This is the answer, but with more self-awareness than usual.

 

[RaymondFromThePyrénéés]

I still think that measuring cannot totally overide the listening 'experience' . There got to be a way to credit one's ears for what one likes and does not like or like less. I have a guitar and it sounds ok. My son got a great guitar for this 40 years old birthday, and it sound fantastic. No need for measurments .

 

[Golfx]

I still think that measuring cannot totally overide the listening 'experience' . There got to be a way to credit one's ears for what one likes and does not like or like less. I have a guitar and it sounds ok. My son got a great guitar for this 40 years old birthday, and it sound fantastic. No need for measurments .

Mood, frame of mind, owner’s bias and sighted bias all control audible pleasure.

 

[kyuu]

I still think that measuring cannot totally overide the listening 'experience' . There got to be a way to credit one's ears for what one likes and does not like or like less. I have a guitar and it sounds ok. My son got a great guitar for this 40 years old birthday, and it sound fantastic. No need for measurments .

For electronics measurements absolutely do override the "listening experience". We can completely characterize the signal that goes into, and comes out, of electronics. There is nothing else except the signal. Your ears don't have magical powers to hear things that we can't measure in the signal... though the ear-brain system can certainly perceive things that aren't actually there, when the listening isn't properly blinded.

Speakers are more complicated, of course, but their performance can be quite adequately described by a comprehensive suite of measurements. Instruments like a guitar, on the other hand, simply don't have anything to do with the subject.

 

[RaymondFromThePyrénéés]

Thank you, sorry, I never thought about measuring without speakers. But with speakers, there is not only the speakers, but also the room. But I understand, when comparing speakers, measuring is the way to go but the microphone cannot know the sound I prefer, I would think ?

 

[kyuu]

Thank you, sorry, I never thought about measuring without speakers. But with speakers, there is not only the speakers, but also the room. But I understand, when comparing speakers, measuring is the way to go but the microphone cannot know the sound I prefer, I would think ?

The existing research over many decades proves that people do have a consistent preference for a neutral loudspeaker free of resonances in blind listening tests. This only makes sense when you think about it: the audio has been mixed and mastered by people aiming to make it as pleasing as possible. Why would random changes in the frequency response somehow make it sound better? That's not to say all mixing/mastering is perfect, but even when it's lacking it's not in a consistent way where a badly measuring speaker's peaks and valleys are going to line up in a way that makes all content sound better. Tone controls are a better way to deal with poorly mastered material.

 

[Sal1950]

I still think that measuring cannot totally overide the listening 'experience' . There got to be a way to credit one's ears for what one likes and does not like or like less. I have a guitar and it sounds ok. My son got a great guitar for this 40 years old birthday, and it sound fantastic. No need for measurments .

Guitars and other instruments & amps are designed to "create" a particular sound. By messing with the controls you can make your guitar sound just the way you want it.

High Fidelity amps are supposed to be transparent to the source and supply you with the sound the artists & engineers intended.
What you like or does not like isn't supposed to come into play here, that was the artists decisions.
Of course if you don't care and want to turn your bass control to +10, your perfectly free to do so.

 

[Sal1950]

but the microphone cannot know the sound I prefer, I would think ?

The microphone used for a recording is also chosen by the artist/engineer to supply the sound THEY like,
They hope you will too.

 

[Keith_W]

The existing research over many decades proves that people do have a consistent preference for a neutral loudspeaker free of resonances in blind listening tests.

Here's an anecdote that proves your point emphatically. Over the weekend, I was at a Melbourne Audio Club meeting. They are putting the finishing touches on the club project, a DIY 3-way loudspeaker. The only thing left to do was final tuning of the passive crossover. This was accomplished by adding/removing resistors on a bread board. There was a listening panel of about 10 members, a mixture of objectivists and subjectivists.

During the presentation, one of the senior members of the club said to me that "loudspeakers are difficult, there are so many loudspeakers, and they all sound different. It is impossible to please everyone". I disagreed, I said that you only have to look at Toole's 1980's study where he measured the speakers with the highest subjective rating and they were all neutral. The study was repeated in the 2000's with different speakers, and the preference was still for neutral loudspeakers. So if there is one predictor for speaker preference, it was loudspeaker neutrality. He said "hmm, interesting" but he didn't seem convinced.

Anyway, we continued to listen and tune the XO. At one point, we felt that it was the best we were able to do. So the mic was brought out and we took a sweep. Listening to music alone, the members were able to do this:

This is an in-room measurement of the right speaker alone, from 1m. As you can see, the treble has a -0.5dB deviation from flat, and the overall curve had a -2dB slope when measured from 1m. I think it was remarkable that we were able to do this subjectively, and the listening panel consisted of 10 people of different persuasions!

So yes - there is a strong preference for neutral sound.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

The microphone used for a recording is also chosen by the artist/engineer to supply the sound THEY like,
They hope you will too.

But, there is still that pesky person in middle ... the mixing engineer who is there adjusting the mix so that it will sound best over a collection of speaker media — using studio monitors and headphones — based on their expert engineering opinion.

So I'm not sure we can say that what we are getting is solely the artist's original intent. And I'm not sure we can imply it is wrong for people to prefer adding biases to their listing (more bass, more treble, etc.)... or purchasing equipment that has such bias built into the reproduction (e.g., tubes, systems that have an intentional "house curve", etc.).

Edit: @Keith_W does makes a good point (post above) that we might be able to convince people that their held-biases are actually not what they really want.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

An old rely by my buddy @restorer-john here but still he hits the nail on the head.
With power amps (ignoring the snake-oil and marketing BS), we all knew that within certain limits looking into a A/B amp a BIG hokin transformer and supply cap's told us a lot about what the amp might be able to deliver in the way of muscle. When I look in todays D amps, having little more components than the 6 transistor radio I marveled over in 1966, it's hard to swallow the truth of it's real world capability. To tell the honest truth, that's a big part of why I'm still running a stack of 30yo Adcom amps here and haven't moved on to something else. I do know that when one of these guys lets the smoke out they'll be replaced with something most likely from Buckeye.
But still that will be a hard pill to swallow. "what a little wimp LOL"

So, like, fragile masculinity?

 

[ahofer]

I still think that measuring cannot totally overide the listening 'experience' . There got to be a way to credit one's ears for what one likes and does not like or like less. I have a guitar and it sounds ok. My son got a great guitar for this 40 years old birthday, and it sound fantastic. No need for measurments .

Measurements of the signal only tell you about the signal. What goes on elsewhere in your body and brain is all part of the experience. But if you want to know if it actually *sounds* different, measurements are your best guide.

 

[DavidM1]

So I'm not sure we can say that what we are getting is solely the artist's original intent.

I would say the answer is emphatically no. There simply is no one right sound, even for "neutrally' recorded classical instruments. Microphone placement, recording space, microphone choice etc. play a huge part in what is actually recorded. We talk about the effect of room resonances when listening to speakers but be assured there are just as many variables in the recording experience. Then there is the location of the player; many instruments have the performer sitting with the soundboard or horn facing the audience or other players and away from their own ears. Sitting in the middle of an ensemble is a hugely different experience to sitting back and facing it... etc.

The best a performer can hope for is to be happy with the recording, to like what the mastering engineer has done and to be confident that any edits won't be obvious. Playing a recording with neutral equipment is going to bring the listener close to the same experience as those making the recording but there is a patina of artificiality in the creation of any recorded product.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

re: "the artist's intent"

https://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Barthes.pdf

 

[Sal1950]

So I'm not sure we can say that what we are getting is solely the artist's original intent.

Absolutely not, nothings perfect, but that IS THE GOAL of a High Fidelity Music Reproduction System.

And I'm not sure we can imply it is wrong for people to prefer adding biases to their listing (more bass, more treble, etc.)... or purchasing equipment that has such bias built into the reproduction (e.g., tubes, systems that have an intentional "house curve", etc.).

It's not wrong,, it's just no longer High Fidelity. The dude in his pimp-mobile lowridin down the strip with every panel on his car loudly buzzing and rattling loves it and believes it "sounds good". It makes him very happy but it still sucks.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

but that IS THE GOAL of a High Fidelity Music Reproduction System.

It is an unattainable (more like imaginary) goal, then, since you and I are categorically incapable of knowing an artist's intent.
In fact, it's not a goal at all of a hi-fi system. A hi-fi system's goal is to reproduce the source recording as accurately as possible, demonstrating high fidelity to the source recording, not to some unknown/unknowable intent.

 

[Sal1950]

In fact, it's not a goal at all of a hi-fi system. A hi-fi system's goal is to reproduce the source recording as accurately as possible, demonstrating high fidelity to the source recording, not to some unknown/unknowable intent.

What? Isn't that what I said? High Fidelity to the source recording isn't some unknown intent, it's the source recording.
Your trying to prove my wrong by proving I'm right. ROTF

 

[Sokel]

It is an unattainable (more like imaginary) goal, then, since you and I are categorically incapable of knowing an artist's intent.
In fact, it's not a goal at all of a hi-fi system. A hi-fi system's goal is to reproduce the source recording as accurately as possible, demonstrating high fidelity to the source recording, not to some unknown/unknowable intent.

If we want to take it even further, we should not only have the recording but a recording of the recording+room at the control room where the deal was made.
We could then see the actual studio response as well.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

What? Isn't that what I said? High Fidelity to the source recording isn't some unknown intent, it's the source recording.

No, you said fidelity to the artist's intent, which is unknowable. Speaking as a musician who releases recordings, I can tell you that the recording itself may not even be faithful to the artist's intent, for one, but more broadly, "intent" is unknowable to those of us who do not reside in the artist's mind. The simple formulation is that hi-fi equipment's job is to faithfully reproduce what's on the recording, regardless of that recording's relationship with the artist's intent.

ON EDIT: I see I misread your comment. I'm sorry, @Sal1950 , for mischaracterizing your post, which is indeed unobjectionable. My apologies to you!