Yeah, I found the article....I will quote a few lines Yes, on the Web everyone has a voice ... 90% of what is said is crap ... a magazine acts as both aglomerator and gatekeeper.... Well, in the first moment it sounds harsh, but he isn't so wrong. Audiogon is probably the exception but there are others out there where you have to be careful not to get eye cancer.But this can also happen with print media, ever read Tone Audio? Here the world is good, no, it is much better than good, everything, I mean really everything promoted there is a ultra-huge recommendation. Free information tends to be worth exactly what you've paid for...it is not the same information you get from a magazine like Stereophile Hm, indeed the "I like it" comment you will find everywhere but in a review it is simply the wrong one. What you won't find in forum discussions is indeed the professional Product Placement, here we have facts, comments, enthusiastic and critical comments, sometimes supportive comments from hidden dealers and we have ... religion. And Tequila :-) Sam Tellig and Larry Greenhill made their Stereophile debuts in 1984, Michel Fremer, John Marks, Robert Baird (the one with the Beetles reissue recommendation, the essential one), and Art dudley also made their debuts around that time though not in this magazine. Wes Phillips, Bobs Reina and Deutsch, Brian Damkroger, Jon Iverson and Kalman Rubinson first appeard in Stereophile in the 1990's Aha. Plenty of time to hear differences and to think about why something is different. 20 wasted years? 20 years cheating subscribers with recommendations which are based on "I like it" or to quote Mrs. Fremer while listening to the Caliburn: "That's better than Sex" (see in Class A recommendation, turntables) Stereophile has an online Archive of records to die for, and reviews and measurements ... ok, the records to die for is the answer to HP Super disc list but honestly, HP list is something totally different, those records are really top, and Stereophile didn't discover all the years the wrong typo in their Headline, correct is Records to die from... 6Moons has everything online, so what? Measurements are ok, but sometimes the tests are shortened because a unit does not survive it, but that is not written later in the recommendation list (see the Momentum amp "review" from D'Agostino..but Agostino has a huge ad in that mag...) Never saw measurements from Turntables about correct speed, about quality or parts,wow and flutter, correct geometry about tonearms (a lot of the longer ones are wrong), the discussion about Arm materials, distortion datas in the inner grooves or what's the reason for gold coils in cartridges....or the difference from Phono cables to regular RCA cables... Summary: Where is the advantage? |
Dear Manitunc: +++++ " using a tube amp with most speakers will cause a varying frequency response not at all like the original recording, and therefore, because they didnt make that statement, their opinions are worthless. Now, that could have been said in one post, instead of 30 length posts denigrating anyone that disagrees.... " +++++
all those is your own interpretation or what you want to read but certainly not what I posted:
the tube amp subject was only an example on 3-4 examples I writed that coincide with the Syntax example on his posted thread. So, it is not true that beause the tube subject alone the reviewers work is worthless. This is your interpretation but I never said that. So, don't put words in my " mouth ".
" Denigrating any one that disagrees "??????
Please let me know where I denigrated any one. To have a different opinion is only this: different opinion but this is far away from denigrate any one.
" +++++ but reading Raul's posts make my head hurt. " ++++
come on, please do it a favor and don't punished your self and stop to read my posts. Simple as that.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul, what you post is very true; I agree. Not knowing what others' priorities or targets (to use your terminology) are, I usually assume that there will be, at least, an attempt to use the sound of live music as a standard. Otherwise, does it really matter what "right" is? If the target is only to put together a set of components that are perfectly matched "on paper", that's fine; but...... |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I would be the first to admit that modern SS amplifiers are probably not so guilty of these sins, and the gap between tube and SS has narrowed...." ++++++
I agree with the first part of your statement and can add that almost al SS amplifiers are designed using no FB, that high FB SS characterisitc on design is only history as you said. Btw, IMHO the First Wat amp is nothing that can make justice to today great SS amplifier designs: not recomended, the N.Pass other amp designs are way different and recomended.
Your second part where you think the gap between tube and SS has narrowed could be not in that way. IMHO that gap is bigger than ever and goes wider through the time. Lewm, tubes are at its limit there is no more hope about on amps designs and SS is stil improving day by day and I can't see limitations for growing up on this amp technology designs.
Today many of the SS myths as some of the ones you name it and other like: the SS are analythical, cooler sound, no natural music sound, etc, etc... are only myths. Today the SS techology as you posted improved a lot over the myths from the 70's-80's.
+++++ " The first Watt is the most important Watt. " +++++
well that's something that I too learned but that IMHO is not really true. Lewm, the most important watt(s) is/are those that are asked by the speakers and the amplifier can supply with accuracy in real time. Music is not " stady " but with huge dynamic demands over what you and me can imagine.
++++ " Isn't that a sign that Raul and I are after the same thing but by different methods? " ++++
way different methods because your source is lot less accurate and has higher distortions/colorations.
Anyway, I think each one target is to enjoy the music.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Lewm, I see your point. I just think that at their most fundamental, the goal of capturing exactly what is on the recording and the goal of capturing a sound that seems real, are different. Perhaps, in the case of a great, realistic recording, the two goals coincide. But far too often, so much of the original musical event is lost through the recording process, that a faithful reproduction of the recording can't sound like real music.
Isn't this what is loosely described by the a "musical" vs. an "analytical" system? In an ideal world, I happen to think they can be the same, but we have the problems of the recording itself.
There are those who argue that a system really is not capable of ever sounding better than the recording itself, because it can't add or fill in what is missing.
Well, perhaps we are saying the same thing.
Regarding reviewers, J Valin of TAS actually addresses this issue in some of his reviews. So when he describes a component as getting him closer to the recording versus one providing the emotional connection to music, I tend to understand what he is trying to describe. When he writes a component gets his system to sound more like the real thing I think he uses words like "emotional gestalt" and "transparency to source" to describe this distinction. |
|
Peter, you wrote "I think Raul seems to want his system to reproduce what is on the recording with as little distortion as possible. You seem to want your system to sound like a live music. Those seem to be different goals."
Actually not. At least I don't think so. If one wanted a "euphonic" result, everything to sound "good" regardless of the quality of the input signal, then one has to rely on serendipity; the sound might be very good in one case where the imperfections of the equipment complement the imperfections of the source, or very bad, when the two are in conflict. On the other hand, if you can get the best out of the source, then you have both lowest distortion and best chance to capture the best most nearly perfect rendition of reality that the source can provide, every time. That's kind of what I was trying to say when I noted that if I make a change to a circuit that theoretically should reduce distortion, it usually also makes the sound "better", more nearly like live, more of the time. |
This thread started as a question about the use of reviewers opinions in helping to put together a system. Raul came on to state that reviewers were disengenuous at best for not pointing out that using a tube amp with most speakers will cause a varying frequency response not at all like the original recording, and therefore, because they didnt make that statement, their opinions are worthless. Now, that could have been said in one post, instead of 30 length posts denigrating anyone that disagrees. But beyond his statement on tube amps distorting sound and reviewers not saying so, what has he added to the discussion on the use of reviews to assemble a system, whether its Raul's review of a component or some professional reviewer's review. Maybe its just me, but reading Raul's posts make my head hurt. |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " FIRST AND FOREMOST trust what your ears tell you ... " +++
agree and I already posted but I added:
++++ " Dear Mapman: ++++ " It takes an educated reader to find where that is. " +++++
you put the finger where it really " weights ": educated reader, educated audiophile and this is part of the overall " problem " subject.
How each one of us was educated? from where that audio education came? whom educated us? and perhaps more important could be that at some time as today we have to ask our self:
ALL WHAT I LEARNED THROUGH MY AUDIO LIFE IS TRUE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TODAY AUDIO ADVANCEMENTS, IT STILL FULFIL MY TODAY PRIORITIES OR THE TODAY NEW STANDARDS? " +++
our ears/brain is educated trhough our music experiences, live ones as the better but what if we never had live music experiences: could my ears be trusty ones to say what is right or wrong against other persons that have different educated ears through live music experiences?
Yes, we have to trust in our ears and time to time ask our self: what learned about? because is what we are hearing.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
"You seem very judgemental of alternative points of view."
You seem awfully touchy on the subject. Were your comments about me or were your comments about yorself? I have noticed on several threads you have found it important to only disagree with my postings. Is there a rub?
|
Rrog,
Who are the thread police? Your oplnions have been as strong as any here, it's an open forum and a variety of viewpoints are expected. Some agree with Raul's view and others don't, that's how it goes.You feel he makes good points that's fine, others don't feel the same.Are those who see things differently from you the thread police? You seem very judgemental of alternative points of view.
Regards, |
Bifwynne, thank you for the response. I understand that you were not one of the posters declaring one technology to be superior to the other. And, for the record, I did not intend to be confrontational in any way. My comments were a suggestion to FIRST AND FOREMOST trust what your ears tell you; they are usually correct, just like first impressions often are.
Your comments, like those of many of the posters, still point to letting the "theory" override the ears: " at first I thought it sounded terrible, but the techno geeks convinced me to hang in there" followed by "what I think I am hearing". "I not sure why or even if my speakers sound more forward with the 8ohm tap".
My comments are simply a suggestion to force the theory to prove our ears wrong, not the other way around. I am certainly not trying to diminish the importance of measurements; but, I have experienced too many instances when the theory was simply wrong. Not because I "like" this distortion or that, but because my ears told me that this or that "distortion" (and I use the term loosely) sounded more like music sounds; that makes it right in my book. |
Raul makes some very good points regardless of what the thread police and the posting critics think. It's not like this is the first time a thread has evolved into a broader topic. |
Frogman and Lewm,
Very nice posts, well reasoned and expressed. Wisdom on display.
Raul, oh never mind.
Regards, |
A good example of system mismatch is Jeff days system. He is currently blowing the trumpet for ASR Emitter amp and praising it as his new reference. In my opinion his system was always underpowered with flea tube Amps driving big Tannoys.
Yet he is calling the Emitter amp as his reference when he never even compared the emitter to any other high powered amp. How can a reviewer take about 3 months to review an amp and not compare apples with apples. And to call it a reference amp is irresponsible for a reviewer if his calibre. |
I suspect that one might even be disappointed by a live music performance versus an engineered sound studio recording. But that is a discussion for another day. Bifwynne- Interesting that you say that, because I am actually the opposite. I find that (assuming that they are reasonably well done) I prefer "live" recordings. Don't know why but I can speculate that the audience interaction inspires the artist and the lack of overprocessing/overdubbing/over-manipulating allows the "truth" to come through more clearly. Of course, I can't carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket so if the instrument or voice is a LITTLE off-key/out-of-tune, I'd never know it. |
Lewm, I think Raul seems to want his system to reproduce what is on the recording with as little distortion as possible. You seem to want your system to sound like a live music. Those seem to be different goals. |
Bifwynne, Your summation of Ralph's paper is pretty much synonymous with what I last posted. In general (a very important qualifier), don't try to drive a 4-ohm speaker with a tube amplifier, unless it is one humongous beast. Especially don't mate an OTL with a nominal 4-ohm speaker. The reason many/most of us (well, not me) are using multi-driver 4-ohm speakers is because they were made possible by the advent of high power SS amplifiers that use gobs of negative feedback to achieve a very low output impedance, necessary to drive a low impedance speaker, and great looking distortion measurements under laboratory conditions. The 70s phenomenon of the hi-power SS amplifier, abetted by the audio magazine industry, started this ball rolling. (Are any of you old enough to remember HP drooling over the Phase Linear 700 amplifier? 700W per channel, THD in the millionths of a percent, blew up on the odd occasion, sound like shit.) You may notice that more sensible speakers are making a small comeback in the market place, e.g., those made by Coincident, Devore, Spendor, and several others, possibly because there are guys with 10W 300B amps that want to listen to them. But the other point of my post is that Raul made an argument pro SS almost entirely on this issue of impedance matching, and it IS an issue with modern speakers but not the only issue to consider when selecting an amp to drive your beloved speakers. In other areas, SS amplifiers have faults not shared by tube amplifiers, e.g., sensitivity to a reactive load. Many SS designs cannot drive complex loads without becoming unstable, and many are generating much more distortion than a comparable tube amp under such conditions, when you're sitting there trying to listen to music. THD measurements are made driving a power resistor, hardly a surrogate for a modern loudspeaker with several capacitors in the crossover and inductive and capacitative drivers to boot. Also, don't be fooled by enormous "Damping Factor" numbers, another myth made live by the reviewers. Damping factor is the ratio between the input Z of the speaker and the output Z of the amplifier. Typically, the speaker value is assigned to be 8 ohms. All you need is a ratio of around 10. Much above that, excessive DF can have a negative sonic effect on bass reproduction. Yet, very high damping factor quotes, sometimes in the 1000s, are a bragging point for SS amplifiers, again parroted by reviewers.
Having said all that, I would be the first to admit that modern SS amplifiers are probably not so guilty of these sins, and the gap between tube and SS has narrowed. I am very interested in the First Watt amplifiers made by Nelson Pass and in the more expensive Pass Labs amps, though I have yet to get an audition of any. Look for SS amps that use no or very little NFB. Look for amps that have lowest distortion measurements at lowest power output, such that distortion increases linearly with power from less than one Watt upwards. The first Watt is the most important Watt. Look for Class A SS amps. Those will be the best sounding, I think.
I think Raul is very sincere. But I, like some others here, go for "I like it". I like it, because I just came back from listening to live music and what I want to hear in my home is something that sounds like what I just heard from a live musician, with the same dynamic range and clarity. For me this hobby should be mostly a pleasure. I happen to think that when I get a glimpse of Nirvana, the system is doing most things correctly. The better it gets, the more of my LPs sound great. Every time I make a change in my electronics designed to reduce distortion, the system sounds a little better. Isn't that a sign that Raul and I are after the same thing but by different methods? Maybe. |
Audiophile discovers sound effected by impedance matching! Did it take a lot of research to reach that conclusion? Don't mean to be really rude, but that's basic, basic info. |
Frogman, first off, the purpose of my posts is not to eschew the superiority of tube versus SS -- technologically or acoustically. Not at all! My posts speak to the issue that one should be mindful about whether a particular speaker is a good electrical fit with a particular type of amp, be it tube, SS, or perhaps both. Period.
As to how I came to this issue, although I don't know dork about EE, I'm a EE/scientist whanna-be. So I read and ask a lot of questions, both publicly on the Forum and privately via e mail. The process for me has been a slow learning curve.
Based on a number of private and public conversations with the EE/engineer geeks, I believe that a really bad electrical match can change the acoustic presentation of what comes out of the speaker. Depending on the degree of mismatch, the speaker might not wind up sounding like the designer intended.
A couple of the Forum techies convinced me to try the 4 ohm taps. Initially, I thought the sound was terrible. The geeks convinced me to hang in there. So I did.
What I think I'm hearing now is a tighter low end FR because the speakers take an impedance dive to 4 ohms below 100 Hz. So the 4 ohm tap is a better impedance match. The damping factor is probably a little higher too.
I'm not sure why or even if the speakers sound less forward than when driven on the 8 ohm tap. It might be that driving them on the 4 ohm tap tames the acoustic response at the 2.2K Hz crossover point where impedance climbs to 28 ohms.
A tube amp would naturally put out less power facing that much impedance; a tube amp is much less affected by the resistive load. See the White Paper. If all that is so, then my tube amp would be putting out more power (watts) at the impedance bump as compared to a tube amp. Ergo, the possibility that the speakers might sound bright and forward.
Perhaps, running the speakers off the 4 ohm taps lessens the power output at 2.2K Hz impedance peak. Not really sure. Got a private e mail into one of my geek buddies to see what he thinks.
I'll tell you this in summary -- regardless of whether I or anyone else likes my speakers more or less on the 4 ohm tap versus the 8 ohm tap, what IS important is that the acoustic presentation is different. And that's the point I'm trying to get at here - electrical matching (or not) affects the acoustic presentation. Frankly, some may like the coloration, and that's a personal choice.
I hope I answered your question. |
I don't get it. And it should be pointed out that with all the references to correct speaker/amp matching, and all the proclamations about how one amplification technology is clearly better than another, there isn't a single reference to what it all means as far as actual sound, and THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. With all due respect to those posters, it seems that you are discussing the superiority of one technology over another only in the abstract. So, because electrical theory says that this or that should be better, it is going to sound more like music? Haven't we learned anything yet?
One poster goes so far as to say that one technology is more natural, but the other is more accurate? Huh? Really? Natural, by definition, IS accurate.
Bifwynne, please correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears from your posts that it was only when you read Karsten's paper that you realized that your tube amp was not a good choice for your speakers. It may be a silly question, but how did they sound before you discovered this fact? |
Swampwalker, I'm basically in your camp. The point you touched on has also been discussed ad nauseum on the Forum, because I personally do not believe in the notion of "faithful sound reproduction." The very term is either an oximoron or a non sequitor.
We all know that recorded music, regardless of medium, is highly engineered. I suspect that one might even be disappointed by a live music performance versus an engineered sound studio recording. But that is a discussion for another day.
But to the point in your post above, I still think it's better to start on a level playing field regardless of how the final presentation sounds. That is, if a speaker is reported to have a flat FR and have a certain acoustic presentation -- if driven by a SS amp -- but not so if using a tube amp, I want to know that before making a buying decision.
Maybe some folks don't care. I freely admit that a speaker that is ruler flat when measured in an anecheoic sound room will likely not be ruler flat when you take it home. BUT, at least I have some comfort in knowing I'm playing on that level playing field.
And for the record, I love my ARC tube gear. I also think my Paradigm S8s are fine speakers. I'm just a tad rattled because I figured out too late what it really means when one says a speaker is "tube friendly" or "SS friendly," or both.
And since this OP is about reviewer reliability, I think this very important issue should be prominently raised in every tech review.
Mapman, yes in the end you're correct. But if there is a really serious electrical incompatibility between an amp and a speaker, you don't get to the ear part. |
Dear Swampwalker: +++++ " may be based on differing goals. Raul says (I'm paraphrasing, so feel free to correct me, Raul) that his goal is to reproduce exactly what's on the recording. Nothing more, nothing less. My goal is to have an emotionally enriching experience listening to an artist's work. " +++++
I think we have not different goals but we need some explanation about.
IMHO that " emotionally enriching experience listening... " or it comes in the recording or it not comes.
If does not comes in the recording then we are adding " colorations/distortions " to the recorded signal and if that comes in the recording then we are really enjoying it.
The emotionally charge in any recording is absolutely independent on any audio system: comes in or not.
As truer to the recording is the quality system performance level as better and truer are that " emotionally charge ".
I like music but I like even more music that wake up my emotions and feelings that permit to enjoy at full the music experience.
I don't like analytical audio systems or " accurate "/specs-oriented audio systems that can't shows that music emotional charge when it comes in the recording.
Unfortunatelly many times the recording producers/enginnerings made so signal manipulations that the main music sense ( emotional charges. ) is losted on the recording process. and believe me: we can't recover it.
All of us know when we are listening a good or bad recording beause we " feel " the RYTHMUM or not on each recording.
I'm not different from you about, maybe more discriminating but I'm always looking for that recorded music emotional charges that with out that the music we hear is only sound.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
One thing for sure, in the end, no substitute for trusting one's own ears. |
"Mapman is also a hero of mine."
Always glad to be of service to insomniacs everywhere! :^) |
BIF- W the knowledge you got from Ralph's white paper, some of the basic equipment specs and the technical measurements that JA posts in those little sidebars, you can get pretty far down the road of figuring out if a speaker and an amp are clearly mis-matched. JA will frequently even point that out. Of course, every once in a while, there is a product that "breaks the rules" but if you mesh that approach w lots of reading and research, you should be able to get in the right ballpark.
I also think that some of the disagreement w Raul's approach may be based on differing goals. Raul says (I'm paraphrasing, so feel free to correct me, Raul) that his goal is to reproduce exactly what's on the recording. Nothing more, nothing less. My goal is to have an emotionally enriching experience listening to an artist's work. In my mind, if the hardware can deliver exactly what is on the software, but the music does not move me, then so what? It's kind of like living in Manhattan and owning an exotic car. The traffic, stop lights, potholes and pedestrians would not make driving it pleasurable? Taking this analogy further, if Raul is happier/more satisfied knowing that the car he is driving in NYC can go 0-60 in 3.2 sec and push 0.98 gs on the skid pad, more power to him. |
|
I'm on the Manitunc bus. I've tried to keep up with other Raul threads, but keep falling asleep. It must be tough knowing 'absolutely' so much. Mapman is also a hero of mine. I read about half of the 5-6 audio mags I get because I, also, have no interest in digital. Columnists are always entertaining even if I disagree. I put little stock into recommendations as reviewers have nothing I use in my system to make their perceptions. It's all recreational reading, often as I am listening to vinyl. What's informative for me is, if I have an album being used for the review, to listen for what they claim to hear on their billion dollar rig. Often, I hear the same stuff for a lot less money. Just sayin'. |
Dear Mapman: ++++ " It takes an educated reader to find where that is. " +++++
you put the finger where it really " weights ": educated reader, educated audiophile and this is part of the overall " problem " subject.
How each one of us was educated? from where that audio education came? whom educated us? and perhaps more important could be that at some time as today we have to ask our self:
ALL WHAT I LEARNED THROUGH MY AUDIO LIFE IS TRUE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TODAY AUDIO ADVANCEMENTS, IT STILL FULFIL MY TODAY PRIORITIES OR THE TODAY NEW STANDARDS? or
EXIST A BETTER WAY TO DO IT, A BETTER WAY TO ENJOY MUSIC THROUGH MY AUDIO SYSTEM, A BETTER WAY TO ACHIEVE BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE LEVEL THROUGH MY AUDIO SYSTEM.?
IMHO the audio learning is a day by day process and IMHO we can't refuse to do it and stay passive/sticky with my very old audio training. Passive in the AHEE/reviewers/audio dealers " hands ".
Gentlemans: when in you audio life will be the time for you and only you decide that from TODAY you will take your audio system decisions instead that those decisions still be taken by the AHEE/reviewers/sellers or even other fellows with the wrong audio information?, at the end you are the one who pay for those audio system decisions.
Yes, I know that we think we are the ones that are taken our each one audio system decisions but the true is that's not in that way: we are contaminated by the corrupted AHEE.
This is the bad news, the good news is that each one of us can make things change for the better. Is up to each one of us and from no other source.
As our systems time to time needs up dates we that are the most important part of our audio system need to be up dated continuously.
How do you know if your 500K dollars system is the best way to enjoy music at home? are there better options with the same kind of money?. You can be surprised to learn that not only exist a lot better options and not for the same kind of big money but for a lot less money.
How to achieve it?, IMHO the only way is learning: improving our each one ignorance level improving our each one knowledge level and work to achieve that.
Yes, we all have to do our each one work to have the posibility an opportunity to grow up in favor of the MUSIC and music enjoyment.
The hard part in that learning process is to recognise that many audio subjects we learned are wrong, sooner or latter you will discover this fact.
We all are surrounded of myths, myths that were promoted by the AHEE. One of those myths is: " forgeret about measurements. Your ears are the best judgement. " TAS and other notable AHEE members promoted that.
Yes, our ears are the best tool to identify what is right and what is wrong but only if before we learned what is right and what is wrong. So our ears are as good as what we learned beause what we learned is what we are accustom to listen, our ears are already equalize on what we learned. Example: tubes amps or LOMC or whatever.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
"Atkinson wrote in that Issue, that in most forums is mainly nonsense written, from time wasters who have absolutely no idea from anything and a professional reviewer who writes in a magazine, is a much more serious source..."
What else would a representative of an archaic species at the border of extinction write?
Being rather a young generation listener, reviewer words mean nothing to me and actually I do not waste my time neither reading any "professional" reviews nor even thinking of how corrupt, non-sense etc they are. I think I live in a parallel universe. Gear problems I try to resolve in various internet communities, with a very strong BS filter applied. |
Mapman and fellow members, I repeat what I just wrote. The real point goes way beyond the value of reading audio reviews. As I just wrote:
"Folks, you can read reviews all day long. Even if every reviewer says speaker X is the next best innovation since the invention of sliced white bread, it's a waste of time if the speaker was voiced to be driven by a SS amp and you hook it up to the finest $50,000 tube amp. The match is just wrong. It's just about as dumb as trying to put a high compliance cartridge on a tone arm that should only be fitted with a low compliance cartridge.
. . .
As I have learned, before buying an new amp to go with your darling speakers, or new speakers to go with your darling amp, make sure you have solid data that tells you the two are good electrical matches."
I strongly advise my fellow members. Read Ralph's White Paper. Try to understand the relationships between watts, voltage, amps and impedance. If you understand what this means, you'll start to appreciate why I, Raul and others have harped about making sure Speaker X was designed and VOICED to be driven by a tube amp or a SS amp, or the best of all worlds, both.
Then read your favorite reviewer's article and see if he touches on the very simple issue of electrical compatibility, before or after he declares the speaker or amp the best piece of gear he ever heard.
Oh, when you go to audition an amp or speaker at a B&M store, keep in mind how the dealer matched the speaker and amp before making a purchase decision. It may save you a lot of aggravation after you bring your new whatever home.
BIF |
The reviewers whose opinions I trust are the ones who base their reviews on a solid foundation of facts. They will point out why one thing works well with another and not another. These kind of reviewers are admittedly in the minority perhaps, but they do exist. No doubt some have vested financial interests in particular products. Fine, as long as the facts support the conclusions. Some are just flat out ignorant of the key facts that goes into making good sound. Some good ones may just have an off day from time to time.
So I would be apprehensive about discounting all reviewers categorically or taking everything they say to heart. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It takes an educated reader to find where that is. |
Dear Syntax: +++++ " But did you never ask yourself, why Reviewers ignore those basics? Or why they are able to write enthusiastically about a tube amp they "reviewed" with a multi-chassis, low efficient speaker design which needs the first 30W for wake up? And the amp has only 10 ... :-) " ++++
certainly they don't ignore " those basics ", what they do is just ignore/undisclosed those audio customers highly valuable information in favor of $$$$$. Tha's why I said almost all of them are part of the AHEE corruption.
The speaker/amp subject is only one example there are others with the same kind of audiophile value and they never touched.
When some one like me touch those " hide " audio subjects many of you just blame me because thinks I'm " crazy ", I'm " ignorant " , I'm " selling " something or I want " ruin " your life. Certainly is not in that way, IMHO is in these kind of forums where we can talk about where we can talk of audio " tabu " subjects.
Dear Manitunc: where if no here?.
In the past I have discussions in this forum and other forums and private with M.Fremer, J.Atkinson, J.Valin and some one else and on all those discussion experiences my conclusion was that those discussions were: USELESS, all of them are living in they very small audio world thinking that only them has the " true " and that we customers are only " lambs " with no brain/common sense and ignorant of everything but what they promote.
In all cases I questio them very specific issues about their reviewes that IMHO were totally wrong gave us false information. In all cases all those reviewers: runaway the discussion, all of them were with no honest capacity to take the " bull by its horns " for the first time in their lives, shame of them an a pity that all those heavy audio know-how are hidden by those reviewers and refuse on porpose to share with us " ignorant lambs ".
Well, as Byfwynne we have to learn by our self.
Please don't blame me about tube/SS or when I talk on digital/analog or LOMC/MM or other audio subjects. I'm only sharing with all of you my findings even if I'm wrong. I repeat: if not here where can we learn what we need to learn?
I'm not against any one of you: I'M WITH YOU, ALWAYS.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Mapman, that's the whole point. Unless the reviewer points out this critical fact, his article is meaningless. It's like trying to buy top grade mountain bike tires for a $5000 road bike. Yeah, they'll work, but the match is wrong.
Unless the speaker/amp manufacturers and the professional reviewers come clean and explain this issue, the consumer is blind. And btw, I called a local Paradigm dealer to find out if I could borrow a SS amp to try out at home. The answer was no. Further, the dealer didn't even have the S8s on the floor. So why bother.
Folks, you can read reviews all day long. Even if every reviewer says speaker X is the next best innovation since the invention of sliced white bread, it's a waste of time if the speaker was voiced to be driven by a SS amp and you hook it up to the finest $50,000 tube amp. The match is just wrong. It's just about as dumb as trying to put a high compliance cartridge on a tone arm that should only be fitted with a low compliance cartridge.
I repeat what I said above. As I have learned, before buying an new amp to go with your darling speakers, or new speakers to go with your darling amp, make sure you have solid data that tells you the two are good electrical matches. |
"You are a wise persons and IMHO there are no true real facts where you can argue that tube technology is better than SS to work with real speakers"
Some say some tubes provide more linear gain at various frequencies than transistors. IF so, that would be one benefit of tubes.
Of course no single aspect of either technology tells the whole story.
I would say that as long as amp and speakers are well matched "electronically", good things can happen.
SS amps will tend to perform best with different speaker designs than tube amps. Tube amps will be more challenged to match SS performance with speakers designed for SS use. SS amps may be less challenged "electronically" to drive speakers that work best with tubes, but sound will be different and not like the one the speaker designer probably intended. |
Well, Wolf, he has at least ruined this thread.
Kiddman, your comment goes back to my last comment that it is nearly impossible to listen to any equipment these days before buying, and comparing is even more unlikely. so, if you have the liquid cash flow to buy and try, and then sell what you dont like, I suppose you dont need anyone elses input. But I would at least like to narrow my choices before I pays my moneys.
So, I do my internet search, and if I find universal praise or condemnation for a product that caught my interest, I can either add or delete that product from my short list. I also find that it takes time to learn about a component, so its not a matter of trying for a week and sending it back. changing out components in my set up is not a 5 minute job, except for maybe the speakers. It would be nice if I could just go to my local stereo emporium, like I used to do, and sit for an afternoon listening to my two or three finalists. but those days are over for anyone who lives outside a major metropolitan area.
So for me, reviews, both professional and on forums, have use. |
I'm sure my post will generate a lot of negative push back, but this is where I am holding now until someone cogently explains otherwise.
Cheers.
Bifwynne Don't worry. You are right and what you wrote is normal common sense. But did you never ask yourself, why Reviewers ignore those basics? Or why they are able to write enthusiastically about a tube amp they "reviewed" with a multi-chassis, low efficient speaker design which needs the first 30W for wake up? And the amp has only 10 ... :-) But that is only 1 example. Atkinson wrote in that Issue, that in most forums is mainly nonsense written, from time wasters who have absolutely no idea from anything and a professional reviewer who writes in a magazine, is a much more serious source... |
Lew and Raul, I greatly respect both of your opinions and knowledge. But Raul made a couple of points that jive with a technical issue that I am presently sorting through. As you can see from my system description, I own Paradigm Signature 8 speakers and drive them with an ARC tube amp which puts outs 120 wpc.
Raul is correct in saying that matching an amp with a particular speaker is an electrical issue. Lew, I'm sure you read Ralph Karsten's White Paper that explains the so-called Voltage and Power Paradigms. As I am learning, some speakers have impedance curves and phase angles that make them tube friendly. However, other speakers were designed and voiced to be driven by solid state amps, not tube amps. And many of these speakers may not be so tube friendly.
I appreciate that there are a lot of other factors at play when matching amps and speakers. But some tube amps will simply have a hard time driving speakers with wild impedance curves and reactive phase angles, especially in the low frequency range.
Perhaps an even more important point. If a speakers was designed and voiced with the expectation that it would be driven by a SS amp, even if a tube amp has the umph to drive the low end, the speaker's acoustic signature may change the whole presentation. Hence it is possible that a speaker that is spec'ed to be ruler flat if driven by a SS amp, may not perform the same if driven by a tube amp.
In my case, my Paradigm S8s are the "back of the room darlings" of many a reviewer, including Mark Mickelson. See his article in the May, 2010 edition of TAB. The S8s were voted by another mag to be the best speaker on the market in 2011. Isn't that great?? [sic]
But here's the darker side to the story. After reading Ralph's White Paper and doing a lot more research, it became apparent that my speakers are NOT so tube friendly. Ooops. The impedance curves and reactive phase angles made me dizzy.
I spoke with Paradigm's technical folks and they said that the S8s were designed and voiced to be driven by a high power/high current amp. Oh sh*t!! Ralph's White Paper would describe such an amp as a Voltage Paradigm amp, or more commonly known as a typical SS amp.
Aside from issues pertaining to my ARC tube amp's ability to tackle my speaker's low end, I suspect that its acoustic presentation is different than described in Paradigm's literature.
This issue, or at least facets of it, has been raised in numerous Forum OPs. But here's my gripe and it's a big one. I think it's incumbent on the manufacturers to expressly state whether their speakers were designed to be driven by a tube amp or a SS amp, or perhaps both. Similarly, I think it's incumbent on the reviewers to alert their readership of the same point.
While one can argue about the virtues or deficiencies of tube versus SS, if the electrical match with the speaker is way off, the argument is simply academic.
So now, I'm trying to tweak my rig to get the type of performance that I expected to get after reading company literature and all the reviewer articles that are posted on the company's web site. Right now, I'm playing with the output tranny taps and also contacted Tom Tutay to custom design a low pass filter that will be inserted between my line stage and amp. The objective is to try an tame my speakers.
My bottom line advice to my fellow members is do your homework if buying new speakers or a new amp. Electrical matching is the FIRST question to be asked and answered. Try to obtain impedance and phase angle graphs. If the impedance curves and phase angles are moderate, the speaker may be tube amp and SS amp friendly. Also, call the speaker company's tech people and ask what type of amp the designers had in mind to drive the speaker.
That's about all for now. I'm sure my post will generate a lot of negative push back, but this is where I am holding now until someone cogently explains otherwise.
Cheers. |
I can no longer enjoy music...Raul ruined it for me. |
As an insider I can tell you it more often means nothing at all when a product is raved. But sometimes some reviewers are right on target. The problem is that you have absolutely no way of knowing which of the above is true for any given review. Listening for yourself is the only way!
|
I think we should go private with this argument, if you wish. It has nothing to do with the topic.
I can't resist one point: speakers in general have evolved to match solid state amplifiers. Does that mean necessarily that we are left with the best possible speakers? No. However, I would not argue for a moment that high power solid state amplifiers are best suited to drive low impedance, low efficiency, multi-driver speakers which are dominant in the high end marketplace. Most of those speakers suck, IMO. (Yes, that's MHO.) |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " The choice of amplifier should be determined by only one thing - the choice of speaker. The better the two elements are matched, the closer the resulting artificially recreated sound will be to reality.... " +++++
right, agree on that. Now. IMHO the main subject there is that ++++ " The better the two elements are matched,.. " +++
what means IMHO that " matched ", simple: electrical matched, that's all. The first electrical parameter to have to be matched is the electrical speaker impedance curve against the amplifier output impedance. After that the speaker current asked against what the amplifier can supply it and go on on other factors in between.
Unfortunatelly no one of us have the capacity " to listen directly to amplifiers and preamplifiers without the need for a speaker " and normally tube technology can't handle can't match the specific electrical speaker needs.
That now/today I use SS electronics is only not because I love SS or because I hate tube technology but because SS is IMHO the only true alternative to match the speaker electrical needs.
Lewm, my speific music targets impede the use of tube technology at amplifier level. Today the best match to any speaker electrical needs is the SS alternative.
That facts has nothing to do with what I like or what I don't like, it is as simple as: 2+2.
Lewm, I'm not stupid and certainly you neither. You are a wise persons and IMHO there are no true real facts where you can argue that tube technology is better than SS to work with real speakers. If I were you maybe I give up on this tube topic because you have no serious scientific foundation to follow trying to support it when there is no way to support it.
This is not whom has the reason and I can tell you that whom has the reason and the winner is: the Physics's Laws.
++++ " will take that into account and not be brainwashed " ++++
the Physics's Laws does not permit to any one ( including you and me. ) to brainwash to any one. So we all are protected against that brainwash.
Now, ++++ " the question was about audio reviewers for the mainstream magazines. What do you think of them? " ++++++
I already posted: almost all of them are and promote corruption because they hide critical audio information or gives us misinformation. That electrical speaker/amplifier match is a clear example about when they don't go in deep on that critical subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Sitting in one of many disparate seats with thousands of figgity humans listening to an orchestra, weirdly, will always be nothing like being at home with your little hifi. Who knew? And does anybody adjust their senses when at home, or do you merely sit there unsatisfied that the oboes sound somehow different when not being bounced off the bald pate of the fat guy in the seat in front of you? I'm amazed that anybody can get obsessed with "references" when those ideals of tone and scale are all over the map. I saw the Sleeping Beauty ballet in Boston last weekend from the 3rd row and the orchestra sounded beautiful and played perfectly...then yesterday I cranked up an LP of the same music (Philly by Ormandy) and was blown away again by an utterly different sounding majesty...just with no dancers and more elbow room. Reviewers have their ideals stuck in their heads, not your head, and as long as they write well and publish some cool pics and specs, I'll read it. Now I have to get back to that young hippy chick in my hot tub...she's getting "pruny." |
Raul, Unless you have the unique capacity to listen directly to amplifiers and preamplifiers without the need for a speaker, let me only remind you that we listen to speakers, not amplifiers and preamplifiers. The choice of amplifier should be determined by only one thing - the choice of speaker. The better the two elements are matched, the closer the resulting artificially recreated sound will be to reality. There is no way that even a perfect amplifier, if one existed, could make up for all the imperfections in the recording and playback process that come before and after home amplification. Given your own multi-way, subwoofered choice of speakers, it is no wonder to me that you would prefer solid state amplification. I completely understand that. I hope others who have read your posts here will take that into account and not be brainwashed.
Now, the question was about audio reviewers for the mainstream magazines. What do you think of them? |
Is there an acronym for "non humble opinion?" IMNHO? I dispute the "accuracy" issue as I don't think at reasonable non clipping levels any decent tube amp sounds innacurate, nor does a good SS amp...both should sound great. I insist! I like good digital AND analog, which is not hard to do. I think one reason analog is interesting is the fact that it works at all, so I'm with Raul on that...sort of...and note that SS proponents are often more sharply analytical and strident, and tube freaks are warm and natural...you want a dominatrix in a rubber nurses uniform or a cute hippy chick in a hot tub? (rhetorical question only) |
Dear Marqmike: One main characteristic that has the live music is its dynamic power. This dynamic power an efortless power gives the music its endless so vivid impact all around a wide frequency range.
We can't recreate that music characteristic in our home audio system, even that some of us are on the quest/hunt of.
I'm convinced that in a home system music belongs to both frequency extremes that put the music frame for the whole music performance.
Dynamic power/power impact, to be near to this music characteristic we not only need amplifier power and speakers that can reproduce it but deep accurate bass management and " endless " other frequency extreme wide-band and SS meets in a lot better way those needs.
We can ask why powered subwoofers use SS electronics instead tube ones or why active speakers use SS technology. We need to reproduce the music impact the music power.
The real thing is astonishing and that's why as many of you I attend every single week to live events, nothing compare it. The live experience is unique, our home system experience is only that a: " home system experience " away from that unique live music experience.
I know digital is way better music source medium but not for that I give up analog, instead I fight and work day by day to improve to lower the analog distortions to be near to the recording and my first step on that direction was to be aware of those analog distortions and were it comes/came and how detect it because if you are not aware of those distortions we can't improve about thinking that all what we heard is music or comes in the recording. We need on porpose training to do that, with out this training we just can't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Peterayer: +++++ " I like listening to the BSO on Friday afternoons, and I also like listening to my stereo in the evenings. And the more one sounds like the other, the more I like it. " +++++
your statement is very precise and self explain it. That kind of " I like it " is the one we have to look for because it is not only subjective one but way objective when you are comparing your system quality performance against the " true " ( live music. ).
Certainly the " I like it " cancer I was refering was a different one, the just " I like it " with no real foundation against the " true ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Swamp, thanks. Sometimes a subject just gets to me.
Dude here. Too bad Raul has decided to hijack this thread. Hard to read through. |
I appreciate both sides this discussion. I think Raul is right to a large degree but I am not sure what that degree is. I am not surprised that Wolf likes and, I thinks say he, that his tube equip is fun. Just think guitar amps. I agree with both. Wolf as a musician, recording tech and so on I think he would agree that tube equipment sounds more natural but not more accurate. Again to keep it simple just think guitar amps. Could be any instrument amplified. If he doesn't no big deal. A well mic'd set up I find more of the real life of the dynamism, micro-macro, even across the board sound pressure replayed through a ss units as opposed to tube. Sound is sound pressure and I find it is better done with ss. However one of the many big problems we have is, as a recording it becomes some, to very scaled down in its sound pressure for many reasons, so it is hard to recreate that which is not there. I think tubes give us a more pleasant and natural timbre and tone to the sound pressures we hear but not necessarily more naturally accurate musical instrument tone and timbre to go along with the more even sound pressure across the board. So as a play around guitar player with other friends and their instruments I feel the sense of the life of the music that a musician would be listening for(not all pleasant sounds but the raw thing)to me has been better portrayed by ss-stainless steel I mean ss-solid state. Think Gordon Holt. I do think because of some of the nasties of ss it is just a little harder, but not much, to get a somewhat, not exactly, similar naturally pleasant sound out of ss as that of tubes. A disclaimer-I am a professional toilet bowl cleaner. |
It's great that some enthusiasts have the interest and time and resources to investigate very thoroughly certain audio topics/problems and then arrive at what is for them some "answer" or result to their inquiry. Perhaps reviewers should fall into this camp.
Many others just want to relax and enjoy their music without being haunted by the quest for the truth. Perhaps reviewers too often fall into this camp.
As far as "I like it" being an attitude which leads to audio cancer, well that is pretty provocative. I like listening to the BSO on Friday afternoons, and I also like listening to my stereo in the evenings. And the more one sounds like the other, the more I like it. |
