sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Rick, " #2 is nice except ror that spike at 62.5hz, what is that all about." That is 60hz power line noise. That might just be an artifact of a little noise getting into the measurement leads though. When I redid amp 1 it was showing up a little there too but wasn't in the first test. You can see it, and its harmonic, in amp 3 as well. " You can keep #s 3 & 4 if they are clipping that baddly at 1 watt although #4 looks almost like an undamped coil, maybe needs some feedback." I didn't really watch #3 on the scope but with #4 the sine wave didn't really look clipped. "0.336% but being that it is even order wouldn't be as objectionable." That low of a level is likely to be inaudible. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 BTW, I'm not even remotely putting these pictures forward as the end all be all of how an amp sounds. Just putting them forth since specific claims where made about the distribution of harmonic distortion and how it varies by amp. Most every 'audiophile' assumes given two amps they will prefer the sound of the one with lower distortion. That is not neccessarily true though. I tend to think talk of an amp 'blooming' relates to where its harmonic distortion is rising, and that same person may call an amp with low harmonics 'sterile.' Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Mark, Nope, I meant audiophile as I assume most here consider themselves 'audiophiles.' Look at how many post here are trying to reason their choice in an amp with things like that 'it has low distortion at the levels I listen to' and so forth. I see comments like this all the time here (just look at any SS vs tube thread, or SET vs PP thread) and elsewhere. If the person hasn't tested the amps this is just an assumption that the distortion levels are where they think they are. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 ---------------- On 7/14/2004 8:13:34 AM sfogg wrote: Mark, Nope, I meant audiophile as I assume most here consider themselves 'audiophiles.' Look at how many post here are trying to reason their choice in an amp with things like that 'it has low distortion at the levels I listen to' and so forth. I see comments like this all the time here (just look at any SS vs tube thread, or SET vs PP thread) and elsewhere. If the person hasn't tested the amps this is just an assumption that the distortion levels are where they think they are. Shawn ---------------- Hello: And in relation to what people ARE, ARE NOT, WANT TO, ETC. listening to or listen to in five (5) pages what have we achieved? If one desires SET, one will purchase, justify the purchase - the same with PP, SS, Digital. One will listen, be happy or not. Graphs, measurements, theories, "fact," are like statistics. They can be utilized to prove or disprove what the author wants. But, I am one voice, obviously paid no attention to, tired of coming to a middle ground. Tired of five (5) pages - my opinion. A while ago, my sig was criticized when we could add color, html because it was slowing people's computers down. A thought that we could check off whether we wanted our sig every time did not seem feasible. But, the photos, graphs, attachments at least slow my ability to scan down. I know that I have chosen to read and also post responses. My own fault. Reading basic Physics, Electronics, how a "valave" (tube) is designed and works in addition to How the Human Auditory System works and speaker design and listening, PLUS how to use and interpret Electronic scope, noise generators, etc. is what we have received. A good thing. At least we've learned. dodger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Shawn, I think you may be confusing audiophiles with people who really like listening to music. The horn speaker brigade, of which Klipsch is close to a founding member, have the good fortune of having many, many tweaks available to squeeze better performance(or at least different performance) out of our speakers. We have the luxury of using almost any type of amplification. We also have the need to have good, high quality source materials. Any lesser quality equipment will show up on our systems as the emperor's new clothes. There is a difference between sharing one's experiences, and posing as an audiophile. I look at an audiophile as an engineer who designs audio systems, and in doing such loses any perspective of many quality stereo options. When my system gets dialed in, I will be the last person to declaim how great and wonderful things are. It is much more fun having friends over, and actually listening to good music and watching movies than running to audiophool sites, telling them how things should be. I'll amend the audiophile definition a little to emphasise the main difference...audiopiles are those who get more excited with the equipment, the name, and the cachet. Most people on this site get more excited with the sound, the storm, the fury, and the beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 ---------------- On 7/14/2004 9:02:59 AM sheltie dave wrote: Shawn, I think you may be confusing audiophiles with people who really like listening to music. The horn speaker brigade, of which Klipsch is close to a founding member, have the good fortune of having many, many tweaks available to squeeze better performance(or at least different performance) out of our speakers. We have the luxury of using almost any type of amplification. We also have the need to have good, high quality source materials. Any lesser quality equipment will show up on our systems as the emperor's new clothes. There is a difference between sharing one's experiences, and posing as an audiophile. I look at an audiophile as an engineer who designs audio systems, and in doing such loses any perspective of many quality stereo options. When my system gets dialed in, I will be the last person to declaim how great and wonderful things are. It is much more fun having friends over, and actually listening to good music and watching movies than running to audiophool sites, telling them how things should be. I'll amend the audiophile definition a little to emphasise the main difference...audiopiles are those who get more excited with the equipment, the name, and the cachet. Most people on this site get more excited with the sound, the storm, the fury, and the beauty. ---------------- Dave: You have summed this and some other discussions up in the best of manner. There are those that listen to the equipment and perhaps the type and cost factor, then there is the point at which one decides to listen to the music. A very good Post. dodger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Dodger, Sorry, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. As far as the pictures go I post the pictures as attachments instead of inline so it won't slow down a persons computer if they don't want to view them. Sheltie Dave, "I think you may be confusing audiophiles with people who really like listening to music. The horn speaker brigade," So substiture the 'horn speaker brigade' for audiophile in my post above. Either way it fits. Just read this thread and you will see exaples of it and it is in probably hundreds of others threads too here. And like I also said the distortion measurements won't show personal taste... pretty much not at all. One person may like higher levels of distortion, and there is nothing wrong with that.. it is after all their own personal taste. Where I think the problem arises is that so many have this pipe dream of 'accuracy' that it is audiophile nervousa (or whatever term you desire) taboo for them to possibly like/enjoy distortion...IOW inaccuracy. So a person tries to rationalize that with things like 'at the levels I listen too....' and so on and so forth. There would be a lot less flame fests if audiophiles were confident enough in their choices to just say 'I like component xxx, I don't care why, deal with it.' Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 "..audiopiles are those who get more excited with the equipment, the name, and the cachet. Most people on this site get more excited with the sound, the storm, the fury, and the beauty." Then why do so many feel the need to list their equipment, the name... the cachet in their signatures? Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 " Excuse my confusion here - -are you suggesting that the differing distortion spectra is not related to various taste choices people make? " Not at all. I'm saying people may choose an amp *because* it has more of a certain type of distortion. What I'm also saying is that very very few audiophiles who make this choice will be able to admit that this is why they like the amp. Because of the audiophile holy grail of 'accuracy.' They will instead try to claim/rationalize the choice based on claims of lower distortion (more accuracy..etc..etc..) then other possibilities (no crossover distortion, low distortion at the levels I listen to, no third order distortion...etc....etc..) and they will claim this based on third hand info which is likely very suspect for what is actually occuring. They will not try to learn more about the device itself to see if they can determine what is actually going on to see if they can find what causes their own tastes. This is how this thread started for example. While others may of course make a different choice based on the distortion. And for each individual the choice is correct for their own tastes. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Mark, "Very good and interesting analyser photos." Thanks, when I get some time I'll try and do some more. This was obviously only testing at one frequency. It is certainly possible that the levels and distribution could be different elsewhere. It would also be interesting to see if/how they vary depending upon if the amp is seeing a nice simple 8ohm load vs. a more reactive load. And of course the output level will alter these as well. I will post the identities after Neo gets a chance to see them. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 ---------------- On 7/14/2004 10:59:11 AM sfogg wrote: Mark, "Very good and interesting analyser photos." Thanks, when I get some time I'll try and do some more. This was obviously only testing at one frequency. It is certainly possible that the levels and distribution could be different elsewhere. It would also be interesting to see if/how they vary depending upon if the amp is seeing a nice simple 8ohm load vs. a more reactive load. And of course the output level will alter these as well. I will post the identities after Neo gets a chance to see them. Shawn ---------------- Hi Shawn: For me, growing up where I live, there were three (3) holy grails for equipment - Fisher, Marantz and McIntosh. I own McIntosh as I prefer their sound, looks and even more now, the work done on my C-20 Pre-Amp by a good friend. McIntosh also was, at the time, within my price range, available. It sounded good with Double Advents, better with Klipsch. I gave no thought as to what others would think. At this point I am glad I bought what I did because it is part of my retirement if values stay up or inflate. So as for my decision, it seemed easy to me. I went through a period of what others would think, but came to the decision that I don't have to audition it to others. I enjoy now listening to the music. dodger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 Wow! A pageful and no response from Paul. Perhaps, he's still confused between facts and opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Mark, " An interesting sequence (for any of these that might be tube amps) would 50Hz @ 8ohms, 32 ohms, 64 ohms from one nominal tap. This would simulate the woofer impedance rise to some degree. " I have the parts to built the NHT dummy speaker load which is useful for this sort of testing as well. And of course the impedance changes would depend on the speaker (and crossover) they are being used with. My ALK ES600s for example keep the impedance pretty constant at 6 ohms. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Of course, defining quality-sound is a personal preference, a few have voted here. I enjoyed experiencing Leo's 8-watt TriPath solid-state amp almost as much as the Moondogs with monoplates at Kelly's place last week. Something to be said for quality wattage, and perhaps the synergy of accompanying components, regardless of topology. Curious if PWK was using a commercially-available amp when he tried this out, THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO HIGH-END AUDIO by Robert Harley, page 157 In 1948, loudspeaker pioneer Paul Klipsch conducted a demonstration of live vs. reproduced sound with a symphony orchestra and his Klipschorn loudspeakers. His amplifier power was 5 watts. The Klipschorns are so sensitive (an astounding 105db SPL @1W/1M) that they will produce very high high volume levels with very little amplifier power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I thought he did this with five acoustic watts? I think Harley got this wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I thought I read that he used Creek Amplififiers, ten (10) watts per side. I maay be wrong. dodger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 "I thought he did this with five acoustic watts? I think Harley got this wrong." So anything not aligned with YOUR THINKING is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 ---------------- On 7/14/2004 1:34:13 PM neo33 wrote: "I thought he did this with five acoustic watts? I think Harley got this wrong." So anything not aligned with YOUR THINKING is wrong?---------------- Pipe down, Neophyte. It's a factual issue, not an ideological one. But I think it was 5W of amplifier power, IIRC without looking. Dodger, you're thinking of Brook. 10W(maybe) PP 2A3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I'm sure Hartley screwed up. See paragraph 4 of this ad, written by PWK: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts