Have your say & ask the experts!

Audibly transparent

196 replies [Last post]
CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11423
RE: Audibly transparent

WinterRacer wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

At this stage, I can't remember who is saying what!  rolling on the floor laughing

ie. Do you mean you go for Neutral (accurate to the recording), or Natural (accurate to the un-miked real thing)......if it's the latter, then my philosophy on this has struck a chord ( embarassed ).

Cno, don't feel you have to answer this, but I wonder what kind of distortion a system can add that consistency makes recordings sound more life-like?  Furthermore, what happens if you add this distortion to an already life-like recording?

That's some question! 

If you read through the test results of my amp, you would have seen that it has very low distortion, with comments like this...."However, the real coup de grace came at the end, when I saw graph 8, which shows intermodulation distortion, specifically CCIF-IMD. If you ever needed any proof of the superiority of the Class A design you can stop right here, as this is the best result I have ever seem. In fact as results go, it's perfect......because Class A amps do not require any frequency compensation, open loop gain remains steady over the audio band, which results in superior transient response and therefore dramatically reduced Transient Intermodulation Distortion."

So I can only infer from this, that my system sounds so good because of less, rather than more distortion....which is helped by reference level speakers and a decent streamer.  shifty

 

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

WinterRacer's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 393
RE: Audibly transparent

CnoEvil wrote:

That's some question! 

If you read through the test results of my amp, you would have seen that it has very low distortion, with comments like this...."However, the real coup de grace came at the end, when I saw graph 8, which shows intermodulation distortion, specifically CCIF-IMD. If you ever needed any proof of the superiority of the Class A design you can stop right here, as this is the best result I have ever seem. In fact as results go, it's perfect......because Class A amps do not require any frequency compensation, open loop gain remains steady over the audio band, which results in superior transient response and therefore dramatically reduced Transient Intermodulation Distortion."

So I can only infer from this, that my system sounds so good because of less, rather than more distortion....which is helped by reference level speakers and a decent streamer.  shifty

 

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

 

__________________

My System

WinterRacer's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 393
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?

__________________

My System

WinterRacer's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 393
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

 

__________________

My System

BigH's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 3300
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.

Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 10876
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

__________________

David @Frank Harvey Hi-Fi, Coventry

Official Record Store Day participants!

Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 10876
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..

__________________

David @Frank Harvey Hi-Fi, Coventry

Official Record Store Day participants!

AlmaataKZ's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Jan 2009
Posts: 2125
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
Joined: 7 Jan 2009
Posts: 2125
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
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11423
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.

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 658
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
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11423
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

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 11423
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.

__________________

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."  André Gide

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 658
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

beauty, eh

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 965
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