solderdude
Grand Contributor
It does so it already was in that territory.
You only mentioned something and responded to it.
There was no mentioning of Hitler nor anyone else in the part I quoted.
Last edited:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Carver Raven 350 Review (Tube Amp)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
It does so it already was in that territory.
You only mentioned something and responded to it.
There was no mentioning of Hitler nor anyone else in the part I quoted.
Loomynarty
Member
Much like @solderdude stated, this FR discrepancy will only be enhanced by a speaker load, not reduced. The HF difference will likely be a few dB more than what the 4 ohm resistive load is causing. HF hearing loss is different for most people but, let's look at 12 khz as an example; we can see that with a 4 ohm resistive load the peak to peak difference is about 0.8 dB. Assuming we're using a speaker load, this difference will likely be around 1 dB or greater. 12-15 khz is a very sensitive area of our hearing as equal-loudness contours would suggest - if you've tested your own hearing you likely know there is a region above 10 khz which is more sensitive than above or below. Any increase in SPL in this region would cause the amp to sound brighter than an amp with flat FR regardless of hearing ability. In the case of someone who is just starting to experience HF hearing loss, this would more than likely cause the amp to sound closer to neutral as opposed to rolled off.
Alas, this is all moot if you're suggesting that the demographic which buys these amps have untrained ears.
I go out of my way to be charitable, but this is a $5,000 paperweight.
confusing!!!! do you mean to say Dynaco is good? or Krell is better or Hypex is best?? (sorry, English is not my strength or I may not high in grey matters)
Ok, Dynaco was one of the first stepping stone at a time in my life when most of my peers were listening to 45 rpm with a piezo needle and 0.5 W 5 cm diameter speakers. My very first sound system was the one in the picture, Christmas 1972. I began improving its sound with a 6 W mono kit amplifier from a company named GBC, now defunct. The Philips 2203 had a line output I put to use. Five years later I was gifted the Dynaco ST-35/PAS 3x from the living room: it landed in my bedroom driving a pair of AR 4x. Among many other stepping stones in the past half century, the Krell KAV-300i was a memorable upgrade, and the Hypex NC400 based mono blocks a very significant one. Yes, I enjoy very much my main present set-up to the point I do not think I will further try to improve it. I wished to point out that I have experienced tube sound, enjoyed it, and moved on.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think he's referring to all American muscle cars from the 60's and early 70's. When I got interested in those in my early teens, I remember my dad telling me that anyone can put a big powerful engine in a car, but my little TR6 will run circles around them on the track.
Jimster480
Major Contributor
Yea it depends on what sells... Old school muscle cars weren't the fastest around the track. But the corvette was also fast and had a big engine.
At a guess, the output transformer gets less efficient the greater the transformation ratio from the anodes to the speaker.
Omg. I wonder if you can go a day without a tube going bad.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
You could have some friends round and have sweepstakes on which one will fail first.
Jimster480
Major Contributor
Cuz this is trash
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?
Seems like so many review threads get challenged with: 1. Measurements are not everything. 2. You all never listen. 3. I trust my ears, not graphs. 4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music. 5. You all must not listen to music at all. 6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear? 7...
www.audiosciencereview.com
I think part of the confusion here arises from how badly the human ear can tell the difference between transparent electronics and amplifiers, DACs, etc that are imperfect and compromising the signal.
I think that many music listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between listening to a DAC with a SINAD of 75 dB and one with a SINAD of 110 dB, or a DAC with only 12 bits of linearity vs one with accuracy down to 22 bits, or an amplifier with a SINAD of 50 dB vs one with a SINAD of 85 dB or better. So they can't understand why the gear that measures so poorly actually sounds OK to them... it takes training and practice to be able to hear these things, and using pure tones to listen can often tell you more about the transparency of a gain stage or DAC process than listening to music can. All the signals and their harmonics in music can mask an awful lot of nonlinearity.
The value of making measurements is to find which gear actually adds the least to the music, the minimum amount of artifact. One may not be able to hear the difference - but at least if you are using electronics which have been shown to be changing the audio signal as little as possible, you can have some assurance that what you are listening to is actually in the recording, and not added ( or subtracted ) by your playback chain.
I provided some of the Audio-GD DACs and headphone amps to Amirm for testing that was reported here. And, frankly, when I listened to them on music I didn't hear the horrors that the testing showed. I got rid of the Audio-GD DACs and got a Topping E-50 and a Schiit Modius DAC for my various playback setups. I can't say that I heard any difference - note that I did not A/B these newer DACs against the Audio-GD units - but at any rate I now feel some confidence that my DACs are neutral and transparent.
I've done a lot of casual A/B blind testing of various DACs and amplifiers, I've done A/B between Red Book 44.1 / 16 vs "HD" 96 / 24 tracks and I found that I just could not tell any difference, either using my Stealth 'phones or my Quad ESL 57 speakers.
In the end, if you want to listen to equipment that measures poorly but you believe sounds great - that's your choice. You are responding to your BELIEF about the sound, not to the sound itself. Hearing is subjective, ears are not microphones and the brain doesn't know how to be objective. Chances are few -if any - of us can ACTUALLY hear much difference between a lot of these different amps and DACs. Some folks, with training, can hear differences which would not be apparent to most of us. And it's been shown that, in general, those that have the training and experience prefer the equipment that measures well over the stuff that doesn't make the numbers.
The other reason to measure equipment has nothing to do with how it sounds playing music, but is a measure of the HONESTY of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer says an amplifier can put out 150 watts into 8 ohms with distortion products down 80 dB ( that is THD below 0.01% ) and we measure that amplifier and it hits 1% distortion at 75 watts and gets worse from there on up - well, now we have found that the manufacturer is not being truthful with us. Should we reward manufacturers who lie to the public by spending our hard-earned dollars on their products? I would say, no we should not.
I think that many music listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between listening to a DAC with a SINAD of 75 dB and one with a SINAD of 110 dB, or a DAC with only 12 bits of linearity vs one with accuracy down to 22 bits, or an amplifier with a SINAD of 50 dB vs one with a SINAD of 85 dB or better. So they can't understand why the gear that measures so poorly actually sounds OK to them... it takes training and practice to be able to hear these things, and using pure tones to listen can often tell you more about the transparency of a gain stage or DAC process than listening to music can. All the signals and their harmonics in music can mask an awful lot of nonlinearity.
The value of making measurements is to find which gear actually adds the least to the music, the minimum amount of artifact. One may not be able to hear the difference - but at least if you are using electronics which have been shown to be changing the audio signal as little as possible, you can have some assurance that what you are listening to is actually in the recording, and not added ( or subtracted ) by your playback chain.
I provided some of the Audio-GD DACs and headphone amps to Amirm for testing that was reported here. And, frankly, when I listened to them on music I didn't hear the horrors that the testing showed. I got rid of the Audio-GD DACs and got a Topping E-50 and a Schiit Modius DAC for my various playback setups. I can't say that I heard any difference - note that I did not A/B these newer DACs against the Audio-GD units - but at any rate I now feel some confidence that my DACs are neutral and transparent.
I've done a lot of casual A/B blind testing of various DACs and amplifiers, I've done A/B between Red Book 44.1 / 16 vs "HD" 96 / 24 tracks and I found that I just could not tell any difference, either using my Stealth 'phones or my Quad ESL 57 speakers.
In the end, if you want to listen to equipment that measures poorly but you believe sounds great - that's your choice. You are responding to your BELIEF about the sound, not to the sound itself. Hearing is subjective, ears are not microphones and the brain doesn't know how to be objective. Chances are few -if any - of us can ACTUALLY hear much difference between a lot of these different amps and DACs. Some folks, with training, can hear differences which would not be apparent to most of us. And it's been shown that, in general, those that have the training and experience prefer the equipment that measures well over the stuff that doesn't make the numbers.
The other reason to measure equipment has nothing to do with how it sounds playing music, but is a measure of the HONESTY of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer says an amplifier can put out 150 watts into 8 ohms with distortion products down 80 dB ( that is THD below 0.01% ) and we measure that amplifier and it hits 1% distortion at 75 watts and gets worse from there on up - well, now we have found that the manufacturer is not being truthful with us. Should we reward manufacturers who lie to the public by spending our hard-earned dollars on their products? I would say, no we should not.
If someone was looking for a special tube sound, you might just hear the garbage erm, I mean euphonic high-end sound of this amp.
On a serious note. Those power tubes seem awfully close together. If I had to own this thing I'd get some airflow through there.
On a serious note. Those power tubes seem awfully close together. If I had to own this thing I'd get some airflow through there.
In general, I agree with you, specs should be honest, indeed conservative. However, it seems to me that the reality of today's mainly on-line sales is that stuff has got cheaper and cheaper (except the 'High End') and specs have become worthy of the Booker Prize for Fiction. Whoever offers the most power for the least money gets the sale.
Consequently, my approach is to buy on a combination of discounted specs and price, then make my own measurements. If the numbers I get are adequate for the job I need doing, then the item stays, if not, it goes back. I've sent back a few ADC/DAC combinations that distorted heavily above -6dBFS, I've kept some cheap amplifiers that claimed silly amounts of power, but gave a perfectly clean 20 watts into 8 ohms, which is all I needed, for very little money.
I accept that not everyone buying amps etc on-line has the ability to make their own measurements, or even understand what the specs mean, but as long as sales are done at the lowest price, on-line, with no independent advice but with cheap and easy returns, I can't see the situation changing, as much as I would like it to.
S.
Caveat emptor. Amplifier manufacturers have been lying as long as I remember. At one point some listed a "Peak Power" that could only be (briefly) achieved if you shorted the power supply. They aren't alone; car sub specs are usually complete fabrications, too.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
