I'm old enough to remember Julian Hersch from Audio magazine and his very unscientific view that all amplifiers sounded the same once they met a certain threshold. Now the site Audio Science Review pushes the same.
I call these views unscientific as some one with a little bit of an engineering background as well as data science and epidemiology. I find both of these approaches limited, both in technology used and applied and by stretching the claims for measurements beyond their intention, design and proof of meaning.
Without getting too much into that, I have a very pragmatic point of view. Listen to the following three amplifier brands:
Pass Labs
Luxman
Ayre
If you can't hear a difference, buy the cheapest amplifier you can. You'll be just as happy. However, if you can, you need to evaluate the value of the pleasure of the gear next to your pocket book and buy accordingly. I don't think the claim that some gear is pure audio jewelry, like a fancy watch which doesn't tell better time but looks pretty. I get that, and I've heard that. However, rather than try to use a method from Socrates to debate an issue to the exact wrong conclusion, listen for yourself.
If you wonder if capacitors sound different, build a two way and experiment for yourself. Doing this leaves you with a very very different perspective than those who haven't. You'll also, in both cases, learn about yourself. Are you someone who can't hear a difference? Are you some one who can? What if you are some one who can hear a difference and doesn't care? That's fine. Be true to yourself, but I find very little on earth less worthwhile than having arguments about measurements vs. sound quality and value.
To your own self and your own ears be true. And if that leads you to a crystal radio and piezo ear piece so be it. In my own system, and with my own speakers I've reached these conclusions for myself and I have very little concern for those who want to argue against my experiences and choices.
But I think it is about distortion and and higher order harmonics. @atmaspherementioned it in the thread about his new class-D amp… maybe on another forum though?
The “quiet loudness” is something I do not hear often. Mostly because I do not hear nice systems too often.
But I like it when they are that way. Seems that “quiet loudness” is correlated with it being nice sounding generally.
That is my experience as well. I've said this many times: the mark of a good system is it does not sound loud.
The reason a system sounds 'loud' is distortion; from poor higher ordered harmonics from the amp, poor anti vibration control in the turntable (also poor cartridge condition or setup) or CD transport, early reflections and/or slap echoes in the room and breakups in the loudspeakers.
If all acoustic cues are there at the minimal volume, the lowest possible before being inaudible, whitout any loss between them, the audio system is well embedded and well chosen, and synergetically matched...
Thanks to these 2 posters remarks for this important reminder....BUT
For sure the "listener envelopment factor", which is rarely mentionned in audio threads but which is a very important one, will ask though, particularly in some room size and geometry, for an optimal sound level which will not be high but not too low if you wanted it optimal,unlike the other acoustic factors like timbre and dynamic or imaging for example which will not be changed by a substantial loudness lowering....
The listener envelopment though depends not on sound optimal level "per se" but "on having strong lateral reflections arriving at the listener 80 ms or more after the direct sound "....The sound level being optimal for the room which is my point...
By the way a better ionization of the room will help for the listener envelopment factor if the audio system/room acoustic controls can give it to begin with because this factor is a bit more difficult to get it right than imaging and soundstage only, you cannot have it before having a great imaging and soundstage already, the listener envelopment will come after like an ultimate refinement of the room/listener position in using a better timing between direct and lateral reflections but also back/front reflections and in the right amount of reflections for sure...Balance between diffusion, reflection and absorption is an art of listening here....
Anyway people with the habit of listening at too high sound level have a problem (80 decibels is the LIMIT for any long listening ) , be it their ears or the system/room , or the music choices.... Sorry .... 😁😊
But I think it is about distortion and and higher order harmonics. @atmasphere mentioned it in the thread about his new class-D amp… maybe on another forum though?
The “quiet loudness” is something I do not hear often. Mostly because I do not hear nice systems too often.
But I like it when they are that way. Seems that “quiet loudness” is correlated with it being nice sounding generally.
That is my experience as well. I’ve said this many times: the mark of a good system is it does not sound loud.
The reason a system sounds ’loud’ is distortion; from poor higher ordered harmonics from the amp, poor anti vibration control in the turntable (also poor cartridge condition or setup) or CD transport, early reflections and/or slap echoes in the room and breakups in the loudspeakers.
The question I always had with measurements, are we even measuring the correct things for human hearing parameters?
We are, if all the measurements are actually made and often they are not.
I think I outlined what is needed to know the sound of any amplifier earlier in this thread. I find it interesting that those interested only in the specs discount the subjective aspect so vehemently. I think this arises out of not understanding that all forms of distortion are audible as tonality. That's a bit of connecting the dots. But once you understand that simple fact, the whole idea of things being 'audible and not measurable' goes away.
But you have to also understand what the measurements are saying.
I will only add to "tonality" what is called "timbre" ....
The micro dynamic of the tonal playing instrument timbre reveal much about the system/room interaction...
In acoustic CORRELATION between measures and subjective timbre perception is crux of the matter...
Same in electronic engineering design like say atmasphere...
Then dividing subjectivist amd objectivist camp is preposterous ....
For sure it is always measurable but not always with a material external tool only like some claim but always measurable in the sense of correlating a tool measure with the subject hearing interpretation...It becomes after that a standard in acoustic and in engineering...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
