210 posts / 0 new
Last post
WinterRacer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 14/01/2009 - 14:47
Posts: 391
RE: Audibly transparent

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

steve_1979 wrote:
Bob Carver can make a mass produced $700 solid state amplifier sound exactly the same as any other amplifier (regardless of cost) simply by mimicking the distortion.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Which would probably have been a useful exercise if it had been done for a positive reason. Three and a half years later, it has changed nothing.

What's your view on why this test was done and what would a positive version of it be?

WinterRacer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 14/01/2009 - 14:47
Posts: 391
RE: Audibly transparent

Reflecting on this thread, I'd like to reiterate some points:

1. Accuracy is a good thing,

2. From a SQ PoV, 'too accurate' is not possible.  However beyond a certain point, improvements are inaudible - you're paying for something you can't hear.

3. Terms such as 'clinical', 'harsh', etc. are nothing to do with an accurate system, they are caused by distortion or present in the recording.

 

Over and out. Smile

 

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 12 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3846
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

steve_1979 wrote:
Bob Carver can make a mass produced $700 solid state amplifier sound exactly the same as any other amplifier (regardless of cost) simply by mimicking the distortion.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Which would probably have been a useful exercise if it had been done for a positive reason. Three and a half years later, it has changed nothing.

What's your view on why this test was done and what would a positive version of it be?

 

If nothing else it demonstrates why you should be using 100W+ amps even for low volume listening.

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11602
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:
What's your view on why this test was done and what would a positive version of it be?

Positive outcome? We'd all be buying $700 power amplifiers by now. Except those who choose to go active, of course Smile

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11602
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:
1. Accuracy is a good thing

Agreed, particularly if that is what you're aiming for.

 

Quote:
2. From a SQ PoV, 'too accurate' is not possible.  However beyond a certain point, improvements are inaudible - you're paying for something you can't hear.

But we're far from accurate as no system can recreate a real live event. And I agree, nothing can be too accurate, but a listener can perceive something as too accurate for their liking - as in the frequency response may be too flat for them because they like a warmer sound. It is down to what people are used to or what they prefer as to whether accurate is too accurate.

 

Quote:
3. Terms such as 'clinical', 'harsh', etc. are nothing to do with an accurate system, they are caused by distortion or present in the recording.

It is how some people perceive an accurate system when they hear one..

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

AlmaataKZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 07/01/2009 - 11:48
Posts: 2159
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:

Reflecting on this thread, I'd like to reiterate some points:

1. Accuracy is a good thing,

2. From a SQ PoV, 'too accurate' is not possible.  However beyond a certain point, improvements are inaudible - you're paying for something you can't hear.

3. Terms such as 'clinical', 'harsh', etc. are nothing to do with an accurate system, they are caused by distortion or present in the recording. 

Agree!

AlmaataKZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 07/01/2009 - 11:48
Posts: 2159
RE: Audibly transparent

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

WinterRacer wrote:
1. Accuracy is a good thing

Agreed, particularly if that is what you're aiming for.

 

Quote:
2. From a SQ PoV, 'too accurate' is not possible.  However beyond a certain point, improvements are inaudible - you're paying for something you can't hear.

But we're far from accurate as no system can recreate a real live event. And I agree, nothing can be too accurate, but a listener can perceive something as too accurate for their liking - as in the frequency response may be too flat for them because they like a warmer sound. It is down to what people are used to or what they prefer as to whether accurate is too accurate.

 

Quote:
3. Terms such as 'clinical', 'harsh', etc. are nothing to do with an accurate system, they are caused by distortion or present in the recording.

It is how some people perceive an accurate system when they hear one..

Now that's putting it upside down again!

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12813
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:

Thanks and agree, you're hearing the benefits of a low distortion (aka neutral or accurate) system! Smile

Well if that's the case, almost every other amp I've heard isn't transparent.....and only SS true Class A can be claimed as accurate......which is most unlikely.

For me, this shows it's all too easy to be blinded by one's own dogma (I'm including me here).......it's not "what" is playing the music that counts, but "how" the music sounds.

It's very simple to miss the big picture, when getting hung up on the minutiae of sound.....paralysis by analysis, shall we say.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 31/07/2010 - 07:42
Posts: 692
RE: Audibly transparent

BigH wrote:

WinterRacer wrote:

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

steve_1979 wrote:
Bob Carver can make a mass produced $700 solid state amplifier sound exactly the same as any other amplifier (regardless of cost) simply by mimicking the distortion.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Which would probably have been a useful exercise if it had been done for a positive reason. Three and a half years later, it has changed nothing.

What's your view on why this test was done and what would a positive version of it be?

 

If nothing else it demonstrates why you should be using 100W+ amps even for low volume listening.

While there is some truth to this, I'm firmly in the Class A camp that believes less is more.

At low volumes my Sugden Masterclass integrated (30 w) gives me pretty much the best sound possible in my bedroom while my Accuphase E-560 (also 30w class A) integrated in my listening room is even better.

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12813
RE: Audibly transparent

Singslinger wrote:

While there is some truth to this, I'm firmly in the Class A camp that believes less is more. At low volumes my Sugden Masterclass integrated (30 w) gives me pretty much the best sound possible in my bedroom while my Accuphase E-560 (also 30w class A) integrated in my listening room is even better.

Ah, but you have seen the light.....and felt the heat (and payed the lecky bill).  Wink

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12813
RE: Audibly transparent

AlmaataKZ wrote:

Now that's putting it upside down again!

The enjoyment of music happens on an ethereal level, much like the appreciation of Art, Sculpture, Photography or beauty of any kind; so there is no right and wrong......provided of course, you place more importance on the music, than the system that produces it.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 31/07/2010 - 07:42
Posts: 692
RE: Audibly transparent

CnoEvil wrote:

Singslinger wrote:

While there is some truth to this, I'm firmly in the Class A camp that believes less is more. At low volumes my Sugden Masterclass integrated (30 w) gives me pretty much the best sound possible in my bedroom while my Accuphase E-560 (also 30w class A) integrated in my listening room is even better.

Ah, but you have seen the light.....and felt the heat (and payed the lecky bill).  Wink

:cheers:

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1456
RE: Audibly transparent

lindsayt wrote:

Spoken voice is good test of a system's transparency. So is piano.

I wouldn't want to rely solely on spoken voice as a test of a system's transparency. What if you've got speakers like the LS3/5a that are superb at spoken voice but not so good for recreating a live rock or pop band or a 32 foot organ pipe?

I've only ever bought 3 hifi systems in my life and on each occasion it was the reproduction of piano (or the failure to reproduce piano) that was the deciding factor in my final choice.  I don't know why this should be.

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1456
RE: Audibly transparent

lindsayt wrote:

Spoken voice is good test of a system's transparency. So is piano.

I wouldn't want to rely solely on spoken voice as a test of a system's transparency. What if you've got speakers like the LS3/5a that are superb at spoken voice but not so good for recreating a live rock or pop band or a 32 foot organ pipe?

I've only ever bought 3 hifi systems in my life and on each occasion it was the reproduction of piano (or the failure to reproduce piano) that was the deciding factor in my final choice.  I don't know why this should be.

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12813
RE: Audibly transparent

Covenanter wrote:

 I don't know why this should be.....

Chris

...because it's a great benchmark, as it's very difficult to get right.

I also use violin, female voice (soprano) and the spoken word.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Pages

Log in or register to post comments