• 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). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Interview with Bruno Putzey

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,908
Likes
1,439
Location
Oxford, England
#41
It should also be said that in this particular field there is essentially no research besides Toole, it's not really something that has been extensively studied imho. BBC did a lot of research back in the days but it is dated now, seems that it is not an interesting field anymore.
Research costs money.

In spite of the considerably reduced budget the BBC still performs research; I believe that they're currently pursuing binaural and spatial audio.
In 2017 they broadcasted an experimental live FLAC stream of the Proms which unfurtonately led to the decision not to stream Radio 3 in FLAC:

We believe that the overall benefit to the audience would be small.
We are passionate about audio quality and would like to see more lossless streams available, but having conducted this experiment it is clear to us that there wouldn't be enough of a real benefit to the audience.


http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/Flac/LackAlas.html
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,908
Likes
1,439
Location
Oxford, England
#42
Personally I'm a fan of context. We have to consider who Bruno is talking to, what considerations he needs to take and the target audience responded to.

I'm under no illusion that Neil Degrasse Tyson will speak to a fellow astrophysicist in the same manner as he will speak to me or some highly religious person on tv/radio.

Unless someone can demonstrate in a blindtest that Purify Eigentakt is audibly superior to Nc400, all statements made by Bruno should be viewed upon as generalized knowledge about amps and/or advertisements for his business venture.
His only remark thus far about the audible difference between the two is a very strange one;

"Expecting no difference, the difference was bigger than expected."

Biased view? Was it confirmed by controlled testing? Less noise/hizz? More Prat? Blacker sails? Windier winds at low frequencies? Who knows, so let's assume the simplest answer to be true, marketing bollocks.
Consumer society. Thank the god$ for the internet. Create the need. Work, work, work, spend, spend, spend, waste, waste, waste. We're doomed... :facepalm:
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
5,764
Likes
7,383
Location
Albany Western Australia
#43
Research costs money.

In spite of the considerably reduced budget the BBC still performs research; I believe that they're currently pursuing binaural and spatial audio.
In 2017 they broadcasted an experimental live FLAC stream of the Proms which unfurtonately led to the decision not to stream Radio 3 in FLAC:

We believe that the overall benefit to the audience would be small.
We are passionate about audio quality and would like to see more lossless streams available, but having conducted this experiment it is clear to us that there wouldn't be enough of a real benefit to the audience.


http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/Flac/LackAlas.html
They still do a surprising amount of research in all areas related to broadcasting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd
Specifically audio
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/topics/audio?Type=Projects
 

carlob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
653
Likes
812
Location
Roma, Italy
#44
Research costs money.

In spite of the considerably reduced budget the BBC still performs research; I believe that they're currently pursuing binaural and spatial audio.
In 2017 they broadcasted an experimental live FLAC stream of the Proms which unfurtonately led to the decision not to stream Radio 3 in FLAC:

We believe that the overall benefit to the audience would be small.
We are passionate about audio quality and would like to see more lossless streams available, but having conducted this experiment it is clear to us that there wouldn't be enough of a real benefit to the audience.


http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/Flac/LackAlas.html
Yes but I was referring to loudspeakers. All the research made in the field by BBC gave origin to products that are still in the market, BBC heritage brands like Harbeth, Spendor, etc. But most of it was in the 70s.

I too am sometimes annoyed by the fact that everytime we speak of loudspeakers Toole's name comes out, seems that his research is the only science available in the world but is it?
 

PierreV

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
722
Likes
1,964
#45
Putting things into the larger context, Bruno brought us 200w of very clean power, essentially improving the price/performance ratio back then by a factor of 10 or so. On top of that, Hypex made the modules available to hobbyists and small independent manufacturers. While I am aware he and hypex weren't alone in the class D game, they sure have redefined the industry.

AFAIC, he's allowed to say anything to please any subset of the audiophile community as long as he keeps developing quality stuff and, hopefully, as long as he doesn't become like the ever-smiling old guy who muses about anything and everything as long as it promotes its poorly measuring expensive devices.
 
OP
F

firedog

Active Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
197
Likes
235
Thread Starter #46
Well we already know this; the modern take on the ground loop is that "I hear computer noises, especially when I move my mouse......."

However that is mostly caused by the use of single ended RCA.

RF ingress can cause problems, but as usual the largest cause of these sort of allegedly audible differences is not the equipment of RF/electrical noise, its the listener.
That isn't what he was talking about. He specifically said different streaming devices can change resulting sound, as a result of noise traveling from them downstream into the system. That's why it's a notable comment. He's essentially siding with an unproven subjectivist claim. Listen to the interview and you can hear the context.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
9,649
Likes
12,894
#47
I am increasingly convinced that the abyss which separates objectivists and subjectivists stems from the fact that the former are unwilling to entertain the possibility that many people enjoy particular types of euphonic distortion and that the latter are unwilling to accept that the equipment they prefer doesn't measure well even though it sounds better to their ears. The mute talking to the deaf...

Then there's equipment interaction. Hi-fi playback is called a system for a reason.
Not sure what in my comment elicited this response from tuga. I certainly have had the opinion he puts forth for a long time. I could go find several examples just here at ASR of me saying people may like euphony, but it is a mistake to conflate it with superior fidelity. I've even described how I at times past preferred triodes only to find what I preferred about them was how they color the sound. Yet it sounded as if it were superior fidelity.

Bruno from way back in his career was all about fidelity and still is. While he seems to look for reasons to find straws for non-fidelity audiophiles to grasp at nothing in his work indicates he ever has approached it that way. He is just marketing his products in a way those people aren't put off from thinking maybe there is a little magic not explained by the measurements or that exists beyond the measurements. Even in his excellent measuring gear.

The first thing I recall reading by Mr. Putzeys was an article on cables. He exhaustively measured several kinds showing they wouldn't make a difference. He specifically mentioned teflon and silver as being a goofy combination as it was the worse for tribo-electric effects. Since those days he has been with a company where he offered expensive audiophile cables made of .............wait for it......................silver and teflon. The tribo-electric effects didn't change. Even if his design minimized that the physics indicated that combination at great expense carries the signal the same didn't change either.

What changed?

Bruno moved from engineer to smart engineer:
1596019453168.png


I don't blame him so much for that. But every time he does interviews like this recently, those straws left in for someone to grasp at results in people interpreting his sayings like a bible verse. Years back he didn't do that. It is a smart thing to do when selling things to the public.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,908
Likes
1,439
Location
Oxford, England
#48
Yes but I was referring to loudspeakers. All the research made in the field by BBC gave origin to products that are still in the market, BBC heritage brands like Harbeth, Spendor, etc. But most of it was in the 70s.

I too am sometimes annoyed by the fact that everytime we speak of loudspeakers Toole's name comes out, seems that his research is the only science available in the world but is it?
Cost.

Genelec has been publishing research: https://www.genelec.com/publications
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
5,764
Likes
7,383
Location
Albany Western Australia
#51
That isn't what he was talking about. He specifically said different streaming devices can change resulting sound, as a result of noise traveling from them downstream into the system. That's why it's a notable comment. He's essentially siding with an unproven subjectivist claim. Listen to the interview and you can hear the context.
Which I specifically acknowledged in my comments and yes I listened to the interview.

It's not an unproven subjectivist claim. It's a real technical possibility, however that doesn't mean it's what people are hearing or indeed if they are hearing any effect at all when they swap computers or streamers. . As I pointed out, the big variable is the person. You simply can't trust what people think they hear.

When someone comes out with some controlled test data that shows people can reliably tell the difference from one PC to another I will change my mind, until then.....

Also note the comments from various posters regarding Bruno's "fence sitting".

It's also interesting to note that his designs are fundamentally RF hostile devices and yet they sound great.
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
4,715
Likes
10,151
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
#52
I too am sometimes annoyed by the fact that everytime we speak of loudspeakers Toole's name comes out, seems that his research is the only science available in the world
People love quoting and aligning their beliefs with "gurus". It's just the way it is and somehow, group-think makes many people feel vaidated. Me, I'm the polar opposite. I think you are an independent thinker and that's becoming increasingly rare these days.

High Fidelity has, and always has had "legends", "gurus", "pioneers" and some real characters, but mostly, they are transient in nature and ultimately temper their views to suit the business narrative as time goes on.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
9,649
Likes
12,894
#54
Hello,
Would you mind giving some examples of those A/B designs please ?

Thank you
Oh, none were inexpensive.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-reference-9011-monoblock-amplifier-measurements
This is one I had in mind. I seem to recall another from Accuphase just can't remember which model.

Another which was so low in distortion it was not clear the measurement gear was up to it. I recall it stood tall vertically (I think it was Australian). Had tons of power, but was something like $30k. Sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the name, but maybe it will come to me or someone will remember it.

All of which put into context how good the Purifi, Hypex and Benchmark designs are in getting us gobs of power at high fidelity for relatively little money.
 

Jimbob54

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
3,347
Likes
2,716
#55
I am increasingly convinced that the abyss which separates objectivists and subjectivists stems from the fact that the former are unwilling to entertain the possibility that many people enjoy particular types of euphonic distortion and that the latter are unwilling to accept that the equipment they prefer doesn't measure well
Quite- but I think what draws the most ire is when an O perceives an S as asserting the poorly measuring but euphonic AND EXPENSIVE bit of kit is "better" than the more humble but better measuring kit, with all the accompanying flowery narrative. Sometimes I think that assertion may not actually be there, the S is just raving about some kit they like.
 

carlob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
653
Likes
812
Location
Roma, Italy
#56
I have been looking for a science based alternative point of view or criticism of the work of Toole/Olive, just because I'd prefer to have more authoritative sources and not only one - but let's face it, reality is that there is only their work.

But I don't want to derail this thread into speakers, a positive thing is that regarding amps we know all that needs to be known since decades, certainly there is not shortage of research.
 

Matias

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,146
Likes
1,461
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
#57
I disagree.

What is "euphonic distortion"?

How do you reconcile that with the research (Toole) that shows people prefer neutrality and low distortion?

Does it sound better? So why is it every time I test audiophiles under controlled conditions the allegedly massive differences they previously heard in sighted uncontrolled conditions seem to evaporate?

The abyss is caused by the refusal to accept science, and that includes the science of psycho-acoustics and cognitive bias, as valid. The refusal to accept the limitations and frailties of ones own experience, thinking that personal opinion trumps science.
Try this
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion
 
Last edited:

Matias

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,146
Likes
1,461
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
#58
About the interview I liked that part where someone copies his conclusion somewhere else and links the original article, and someone else says "TL/DR (too long, didn't read) but this is wrong" without even reading the linked article! This explains soooo much ignorance about class D on the internet and audio forums these days!
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
4,715
Likes
10,151
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
#59
Another which was so low in distortion it was not clear the measurement gear was up to it. I recall it stood tall vertically (I think it was Australian). Had tons of power, but was something like $30k. Sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the name, but maybe it will come to me or someone will remember it.
Halcro by designer Bruce Candy. Halcro was an offshoot of his Minelab (the best metal detecting technology in the world) company.

1596021863168.png
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
5,764
Likes
7,383
Location
Albany Western Australia
#60
Top Bottom