 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.214.67.142
At the next big audio show, have some tube "naysayer" disguise himself as a fledgling tube amp designer, and have a room at the show unveiling "tube amps" from this new company.
But instead of real tube amps, use solid state or class T products disguised as "tube amps". The tubes themselves only need to have the glow from the filaments functional. (Don't forget to include the "transfomers", which could be just encased dirt or lead shot.) And the system voiced to sound like "tubes." Use the typical fare for speakers, cables, tweaks, and recordings at the show.
Then afterwards, check out the post-show reports from the high-end journals and websites. And on these forums.
I'm not saying this would prove anything either way, but I think it would be an interesting experiment.
Hi.
But I doubt as who'd pay for such gimmick show & to prove what?
Many shake their heads saying decent sound can hardly be found in any audio shows though.
I had some positive experience when I was invited to a major sonic boutique in town to attend their open-house new products show years back, co-sponsored by the products suppliers, like Mark Levinson, KEF, B&W, Wilson etc etc.
In one of the sound rooms there was a VTL (Vacuum Tube Logic) amps show.
The flagship Votan, with tetrode-trode switching was on, driving the top B&W. I requested the VTL rep to switch to triode mode which I found it sound so much better.
But the guy said we could not hear no difference at all. I said I could hear the difference despite pretty noisy around there. So I was put on a test instantly by A/B switching betwen tetrode vs triode with my back facing the speakers & the amps. Everytime I was correct in identifying the better sound - triode mode.
c-J
with my 450s. Tetrode does provide more power which can be useful for large scale symphonic. There is also slightly better extension on top. OTOH, if I had the power of the Wotans, I'm sure I'd leave them in triode - like HP did for his review.
rw
Hello CJ!
You said you were put to the test when you said you could hear the difference in sound between tetrode & triode mode almost instantly by someone at the audio show. Was the owner of the store, a rep etc?
When A/B switching betwen tetrode vs triode with your back facing the speakers & the amps. The fact you were correct EVERYTIME in identifying the better sound, i.e - triode mode doesn't come as any surprise to me. TRIODES RULE!
Thetubeguy1954
None of you went to the HE show in NY last week? We were there with an amp comparison where one operated a switch and you had to tell us which was the tube amp and which was the SS.
Maybe next year!
P
My speaker building site
You'll get some takers. Forget about the Class T. And don't substitute a class D. They'll give you away for sure. Even audio critics are not that stupid.
Anyone that can hear gold flashed fuses can surely hear a class T/D amp in full glory.
Todd:
I've always wanted to take one of my nicer sounding "sleeper" systems with shockingly inexpensive (or just affordable) components and show up as a "mystery newcomer" at a show with all of these components each cased in 40 pounds of oversized bead-blasted aluminum bling complete with obligatory "way too bright" high-buck power LED and "fire hose" sized AC cable.
Call it malicious.
But I will always believe that there are certain things we do in audio that have more to do with how we FEEL about our systems than how they actually sound.
Cheers,
Presto
I figured I'd break up the monotony a little bit. Besides, if I was tricked into thinking a digital amp dressed like tubes sounded like tubes, I'd talk about it..... It's not the type of thing that would bother me personally.....Kind of like my experience with a Bose enthusiast who listened to my main system, and thought his "Bose system" was so much better, he invited me to visit his place and listen to it.....
to his place to listen?
Reminds me of a brief conversation I had with a coworker a couple years ago at a company party.
Me: "Are you into audio?"
Him: "I'm a big time audiophile! I used to work at Circuit City."
Me: "The prime rib is tasty, isn't it? I'm going to go get some more."
-Pete
put your 3" driver to the test.
Bose is the Apple Computer of audio.
It's better, badder, and less prone to infection from viruses.
You don't want your stereo to catch a cold.
Actually, I better shut up because I use a Cambridge sub/sat system for my computer...
In the world of the "subjectivist" (audiophile) everything has an effect and not everything (very little actually) can be measured. Hat rack looking things have audio impact. Pebbles have audio impact. Pigmentation in wire jacket materials have audio impact. Fluoride has audio impact. Cryo outlets have audio impact, etc, etc, etc, etc....
Even though you are disguising a SS amp as tubes, the very act of disguising it will create real audio differences. The new chassis itself might resist microphonic vibrations more than the standard amp case. The glowing (fake) tubes have electrons flowing through them, that can generate not yet measurable fields, that will interact with the T-amp and cause an audio impact that the golden ear will certainly "perceive" and possibly mistake as tube sound.
So whereas you think that a simple disguise should have absolutely no real (non-imaginary) sonic impact, only a psychological effect, the golden ear cannot be affected psychologically (by law), so any effect described must be attributed to the physical construction of the disguise itself. And would be after the truth were revealed.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"Even though you are disguising a SS amp as tubes, the very act of disguising it will create real audio differences. The new chassis itself might resist microphonic vibrations more than the standard amp case. The glowing (fake) tubes have electrons flowing through them, that can generate not yet measurable fields, that will interact with the T-amp and cause an audio impact that the golden ear will certainly "perceive" and possibly mistake as tube sound."
Hmmmm..... You may be onto something..... If your hypothesis is true, fake tube amps could be the next audiophile rage......
But then again, you can remove the filament and stick LEDs inside the plates, which would draw infinitesimal amounts of current, and the "electron flow" would be too low to have an sonic impact.....
Golden ears can hear an ant fart in THIER living room, which provides comfortable, familiar surroundings. Sometimes, it may take them months of listening to hear the fart, but they *will* hear it. Same thing for LED's. It is not something that can be measured, but is quite obviously audible for those who listen, instead of staring at noiseless graphs.
If YOU cannot hear the obvious sonic impact of LED's, or the different case the T-amp will be used in, or any other part of the physical changes that disguise -
1) You are deaf, or lack sufficient training to perceive
2) Your system lacks resolution
3) You are close minded (like Lord Kelvin, who declared x-rays a hoax)
4) TBA
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
> But then again, you can remove the filament and stick LEDs inside the plates,
> which would draw infinitesimal amounts of current, and the "electron flow" would be
> too low to have an sonic impact.....
You're forgetting that some of our members can detect the sonic influence of digital clocks, rocks and frozen photos that are simply present in the listening room. You think they won't notice the presence of a component immediately adjacent to the signal path that actually has an electron or two moving?
"So whereas you think that a simple disguise should have absolutely no real (non-imaginary) sonic impact, only a psychological effect, the golden ear cannot be affected psychologically (by law), so any effect described must be attributed to the physical construction of the disguise itself."
I could not have said it better (or more sarcastically) myself. I tip my hat to you sir.
Ha ha ha.
"Psychological effects do not exist! Only science we have not explained yet!"
Yeah. Once that is said, what more is there to say?
Cheers,
Presto
A high-end amplifier manufacturer makes the best amp he knows how to make. The circuit board is made in four layers, with ground plane on top and bottom so all traces are internal. This means you can't see what's connected where on the board.
The manufacturer then adds a bunch of cheap ceramic capacitors to the board. But these capacitors aren't connected to anything, so they do nothing whatsoever. He submits the amp to a high-end publication for review. The reviewer peeks at the circuit board, sees ceramic capacitors, then imagines all kinds of sonic anomalies. The amplifier gets a bad review.
Then the manufacturer modifies the amp based on this bad review. He replaces the ceramic capacitors with unobtanium Russian teflon capacitors, still not connected to anything. The amp is then resubmitted for review. The reviewer sees the teflon capacitors and imagines incredible sonic improvements. Then the new amp gets a rave review. The new amp measures the same, but the unbelievable sonic improvement just demonstrates to the reviewer "how little we really know about high-end audio".
The fly in the ointment with this gag is that the manufacturer would have to be willing to sacrifice his business due to the original bad review.
The belief that one can walk into an unfamiliar room, listen to an unfamiliar stereo system, and then make any valid statement whatsoever about what the amplifier used in that unfamiliar stereo system sounds like ... is COMPLETE HIGH-END AUDIO BALONEY.
And thats even if the room had good acoustics.
John Dunlavy used to annoy his prototype speaker listening panel by using ordinary 12AWG zip cord as speaker wire. So he did "experiments" with the panel telling him his employee had changed the wires. The panel "heard" the changes. Dunlavy revealed online in the late 1990's that his employee NEVER changed any speaker cables -- his listeners just imagined these changes! Soon after, Dunlavy began selling Dunlavy speaker cables -- something like $1000/pair. He never made false claims about them, but obviously knew a good profit margin when he saw one!
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Gotta know the landscape (don't forget the software played as well) in order to make any relevant determinations.
rw
Richard,
You're slipping! I cannot believe it but I'm in 100% agreement with your statement: "The belief that one can walk into an unfamiliar room, listen to an unfamiliar stereo system, and then make any valid statement whatsoever about what the amplifier used in that unfamiliar stereo system sounds like ... is COMPLETE HIGH-END AUDIO BALONEY."
This supports precisely a statement I've made here numerous times, i.e "A person MUST first become intimately familiar with an audio system BEFORE attempting to determine how any of the individual sound by themselves." Bravo Richard we'll make a real honest to goodness subjectivist out of you yet...
Thetubeguy1954
I've found most rooms at audio shows to be so bad acoustically that I always wanted to hear the gear somewhere else!
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Oscar Mayer just doesn't do it..... Nor does Hebrew National.....
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
...with Hebrew National.
My biggest complaint about Hebrew National is the containers for their cold cuts..... It's not re-sealable like Oscar Mayer's..... Add the fact the products don't hold up as long in the fridge..... I stopped eating Hebrew National because I too often got an upset stomach.....
Now if their products came individually wrapped (or smaller packages), it would be another story.....
They're really full of Bologna because they're made in Bologna Italy! :^)
As an interesting side-bar & for some additional info. In Italian the letter n in Bologna is actually ñ, which as everyone knows does not exist in America english nor is it pronounced. So instead of pronouncing it bologna (bow-loan-e or ba-loan-e) you'd actually pronounce it boloña. That's for anyone who cares...
Thetubeguy1954
> The belief that one can walk into an unfamiliar room, listen to an unfamiliar stereo system, and then make any valid statement whatsoever about what the amplifier used in that unfamiliar stereo system sounds like ... is COMPLETE HIGH-END AUDIO BALONEY. <
I agree with you.
That's twice!
I'm flabbergasted
R. BassNut Greene
-- I have been waiting since 1996 for an appropriate
time to use the word "flabbergasted" in a post.
-- My next goal is to find the appropriate time
to use "flabbergasted" and "lollygagging"
in the same sentence in a post.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
I think that is Monty Python - if not, it ought to be.
.
Hey, the sun shines on a snakes underpinning once in awhile! :)
My favorite story is when at an audio show, a particular Stereophile former contributor came up to the exhibit I was witnessing, sat down, and within 30 seconds proclaimed the speakers to be fine but the amp to be colored. Talk about flabbergasted!
Geez Kerr, you should have suggested to the reviewer that he lollygag for awhile so he'd have additional time to make a better determination.
Thetubeguy1954
I think you may fundamentally misunderstand how people with knowledge view those that lack knowledge, do not want to learn and choose to believe in marketed nonsense. Why is it in the interests of the former to pay any attention to the latter as your experiment would require?
I presume you are familiar with the history of relatively cheap commercial solid state amplifiers designed to sound identical to expensive valve amplifiers. They failed commercially. People do not buy expensive audiophile equipment because of performance but because they are desirable luxury items. This desire is created primarily by marketing and everybody with a reasonable understanding of the performance of audio equipments has known this since the successful emergence of the audiophile sector in the mid-to-late 70s.
"designed to sound identical to expensive valve amplifiers. They failed commercially."
Maybe they failed commercially because in the end they DIDN'T sound like a good tube amplifier. Maybe they didn't even sound like a good SS amp either. Maybe they were simply a bad design from the beginning. Lots of maybes there and no conclusions.
Hello Morricab!
I have to admit I loved your response of: "Lots of maybes there and no conclusions." to andy19191's statemate of: "designed to sound identical to expensive valve amplifiers. They failed commercially."
I'd like to add to your maybe's that MAYBE andy19191 doesn't buy expensive audiophile equipment because of performance but rather because they are desirable luxury items, but he can hardly speak with any authority for why anyone else buys their equipment. I KNOW I bought my fairly expensive audio components for performance FIRST & FOREMOST!
My criteria for purchasing audio components is as follows...
1) Price. (What can I afford?)
2) Sound quality. (Does it sound like live unamplified music to me?)
3) Looks. (Do I like how it looks?)
So if was looking for a new audio component. I'd #1 decide how much can I afford to spend. Once that's determined I'd #2 look for something that sounds like I believe/know live unamplified music to me. Finally when #1 & #2 are done. If I happened to find two audio components that are similar in price & sound quality, THEN & ONLY THEN would #3 looks play a part in the selection. So yes between two audio components that are similar in price & sound quality, I'd select the one I thought looked the best. I'd never, ever buy an audio component simply to own a desirable luxury item.
Apparently andy19191 would rather own an audio component that's considered a luxury component first & foremost over owning audio components that sound good first and might also expensive and considered a luxury item. Andy19191 thinks everyone else feels what he believes. To me this is an insult to my intelligence and I'd like to believe the intelligence of every other audiophile/music lover with reasonable intelligence. I suppose Andy19191 also believes everyone here doesn't buy their car because of it's performance but rather because it was a desirable luxury item? What about their homes, clothes, watches etc? Or does marketing ONLY affect audiophiles?
Perhaps andy19191 can show me the many, many ADs for Mastersound Reference 845s, BlueNote Stibberts or Aliante Pinafarina Ones in audio mags or anywhere else for that matter, that marketing created and I saw, to influence my choices!??! Or perhaps andy19191 can show that I bought them NOT for performance like I stated!??! These audio components are indeed luxury items to many audiophiles and as andy19191 espouses, EVERYBODY with a reasonable understanding of the performance of audio equipments has known since the successful emergence of the audiophile sector in the mid-to-late 70s, audiophiles buy components because they are desirable luxury items, not because of their performance!
Perhaps andy19191 can support his beliefs with a little proof?
Thetubeguy1954
> Maybe they failed commercially because in the end they DIDN'T sound like a
> good tube amplifier.
I am afraid the evidence is against you. The supporters of the expensive valve amplifiers were unable to distinguish the sound of the valve amplifiers from the sound of the solid state amplifier modified to sound the same.
> Maybe they didn't even sound like a good SS amp either.
Of course not. They were modified to sound the same as a particular valve amplifier.
> Maybe they were simply a bad design from the beginning.
You can certainly make a case for this but it rests far more on bad marketing than on anything technical.
> Lots of maybes there and no conclusions.
In the case of the Carver amplifiers I believe there was full agreement on the sound of the amplifiers from all directly involved. No maybes and a firm conclusion fully inline with established knowledge.
"I am afraid the evidence is against you. "
Evidence? What evidence are you referring to?? Please point me to this evidence you claim to have.
"In the case of the Carver amplifiers I believe there was full agreement on the sound of the amplifiers from all directly involved"
Carver TFM amps do not sound anything like a good tube amp. I know I used to own one. They don't sound like a bad tube amp either for that matter.
> Evidence? What evidence are you referring to?? Please point me to this
> evidence you claim to have.
The real evidence is scientific knowledge about sound, sound perception and the performance of amplifiers. However, if you want to look up the details of the challenges they will no doubt have been reported in the audiophile magazines of the day but, since this was the 1980s, you will probably have to go to a library unless someone can post you a link.
> Carver TFM amps do not sound anything like a good tube amp. I know I used
> to own one. They don't sound like a bad tube amp either for that matter.
They sounded like the expensive valve amplifiers they were designed to sound like under the conditions of the challenges. In this they were successful. Whether they sound like good tube amps or bad tube amps cannot be determined without defining the sound of good and bad.
"The real evidence is scientific knowledge about sound, sound perception and the performance of amplifiers"
Oh you mean like small amounts of high order distortion are audible in sensitive hearing ranges whereas even quite a high amount of 2nd order distortion (over 1% even) is not audible? Things like that? Oh I know, things like discussions from Crowhearst demonstrating that high amounts of negative feedback results in a signal correlated "noise" floor that is really a multitude of high order harmonics, which is changing constantly with the audio signal. Maybe this is inaudible or maybe it is responsible for that somewhat opaque presentation that many SS amps deliver. Or how about Matti Otala showing that back EMF from loudspeakers can generate new kinds of distortion in amplifiers with a high level of negative feedback? Maybe you realize that some kinds of speakers (like electrostats) send nearly the full level signal BACK into the amplifier but obviously not in the same shape it went out of the amp. Think of that being injected all the way back to the input of the amp. It is totally uncorrelated with the currently being amplified signal. Not good I would say and quite possibly audible.
See Andy, I don't believe in Euphonic distortion. I believe in distortion you can hear (bad) and distortion you cannot hear (good). The oscilloscope doesn't discriminate between the two. However; through correlation of listening and measuring we can. Based on the one real study I have read that attempted to do a decent job of this (Cheever) he found that the TYPE of distortion is more important than the level. He also surmized that the fundamental linearity of an amp (ie. open loop) is key to that amp delivering a natural distortion spectrum that our brains can largely ignore.
I tried Keith Howard's distortion adding software and I agree with his conclusion that ALL added distortion makes the sound worse but that a so called "Hiraga" pattern with a smooth decrease in amplitude with increasing order of harmonics is less soncially damaging. I took the same recording of solo violin and added uniform distortion patterns AND patterns I found from some leading amplifiers (taken from 1Khz data). There was also the unaltered piece as a reference. Very educational beause you could hear even quite low levels of added distortion playing the same system at the same volume.
The audiophile industry has been forced to cut itself off from basic knowledge about sound, sound perception and audio in order to use scientifically incorrect beliefs in marketing. Scientific knowledge resides in the technical journals and not the marketing publications and their derivatives. If you look in the technical journals you will see a rather different, far more coherent and long established view of what is going on. All it requires is a bit of interest.
"The audiophile industry has been forced to cut itself off from basic knowledge about sound, sound perception and audio in order to use scientifically incorrect beliefs in marketing."
That is just utter BS, Andy19191
Wouldn't this require the subjective use of ones ears? Does this then establish that things can be established through subjective means?
> Wouldn't this require the subjective use of ones ears?
No. It would involve measuring the transfer function of the valve amplifier, performing a few calculations to mimic it in the solid state amplifier and adding a few cents worth of components to reproduce it.
Attempting to modify then listen, modify then listen, modify then listen should work in theory but would be very inefficient and probably only attempted by someone incapable of performing a few simple calculations.
> Does this then establish that things can be established through subjective
> means?
There has always been a role for subjective listening with controls to establish, for example, what sounds different and/or attractive to people. Subjective listening without controls is primarily used to help sell audiophile equipment which is certainly useful in itself but does not establish much in terms of useful information for consumers or engineers.
"No. It would involve measuring the transfer function of the valve amplifier, performing a few calculations to mimic it in the solid state amplifier and adding a few cents worth of components to reproduce it."
But this doesn't tell you that it SOUNDS like a tube amplifier, which the TFM amps never really sounded like. So actually it is subjective.
> But this doesn't tell you that it SOUNDS like a tube amplifier, which the
> TFM amps never really sounded like. So actually it is subjective.
Under controlled listening conditions, the challengers were unable to distinguish either valve amplifier from the solid state amplifier modified to sound the same. This is most people's definition of sounds the same. Is your definition of sounds different something else? Or do you think the supporters of expensive valve amplifiers who failed to distinguish between the valve and solid state amplifiers were dishonest in their reporting or, perhaps, did not have golden enough ears?
Andy19191,
You're making some gross mistakes here. I happen to remember the Carver challenge fairly well. Carver attempted to similate the sound of a $12K Conrad-Johnson Premier Five for Stereophile. I remember that Carver was satisfied a couple of times that he had indeed matched the sound of the C-J only to have Stereophile members state they could indeed hear a difference. However after about 2-3 days it appeared that Bob had indeed made his very butchered amp "sound" like the Conrad-Johnson Premier Five. IIRC Stereophile's reviewers couldn't tell the C-J five from Bob's amp using their own equipment in their listening room.
Carver later marketed “t” versions of his magnetic field amp that incorporating the "supposed" sound of Conrad Johnson designs however it MUST be said that these amps which were sold to the public were NEVER directly compared against Conrad-Johnson Premier Five in either a single or double blind test. So it's erroneous of you to be claiming any amps that were marketed and sold to the public ever satisfied your claims of being indistinguishable from the Conrad-Johnson Premier Five!
If these magentic amps were indistinguishable from the Conrad-Johnson Premier Five, perhaps you can explain why Bob Carver went on to design the tubed Silver Seven amp? This was an extremely expensive/esoteric tube amp and I believe it was, when introduced, the one of most expensive tube amps available! Shouldn't his C-J mag-amps been selling like hotcakes "if" they sounded like C-J fives? Also please explain why the M4.0t which "supposed" duplicated its sound of Carver's new Silver Seven also didn't sell like hotcakes at somewhere around $800 IIRC.
As you objectivists are so found of stating saying something doesn't make it so. So just because Carver made one amp with the help of Stereophile's reviewer's opinions, sound like a C-J Five. That doesn't mean his mass marketed versions did. Fact is I know they didn't because I listened to them next to a C-J Five. Carvers mag-amps didn't sound anywhere near as good as my then Harmon Kardon Citation 16. I know because I compared them as well...
Thetubeguy1954
> If these magentic amps were indistinguishable from the Conrad-Johnson
> Premier Five, perhaps you can explain why Bob Carver went on to design the
> tubed Silver Seven amp?
The point of this thread is that audiophiles buy what they want to buy in terms of amplifiers and not the most cost effective solution in terms of desired sound. If the technical performance of a luxury amplifier is the same as a mass produced one then all the matters is the marketing and the distinguishing features of the design that hook into that marketing.
In order to make money, which is why audiophile companies exist, Bob Carver would seem to have simply produced something that people wanted to buy. Selling products at a profit is what is important and not technical performance. Actual technical performance is only one factor in why people buy products.
Andy19191,
You've stated the point in this thread is audiophiles just buy what they want to buy in terms of amplifiers. Furthermore according to you these audiophiles DO NOT search for the most cost effective solution in terms of desired sound and "IF" the technical performance of a luxury amplifier is the same as a mass produced one then all the matters is the marketing and the distinguishing features of the design that hook into that marketing. I believe this an incorrect assumption on your part thats actually boils down to being your SUBJECTIVE OPINION of what other audiophiles are doing! I know I did not purchase any of my components following the method you're suggesting above. As I've previously stated in this thread & which you've conveniently ignored, I know I bought my fairly expensive audio components for their performance FIRST & FOREMOST!
I have a set criteria for purchasing new audio components and this is how it's applied:
Number 1 is price. What can I afford to buy? This is what influences my choice the most. Afterall if I cannot afford a certain audio component it doesn't matter, how good it sounds to me or how good it looks to me and all the marketing in the world isn't going to affect this at all!
Number 2 is sound quality. Now that I have a set price point I start listening to the various audio components that fall in that price catagory to determine which of them sounds the most like live unamplified music to me.
Number 3 is looks. So finally looks play a part in my decision, however it's not the way you suggested looks would play a part. If I was looking for a new audio component. After #1 I decided how much I can afford to spend & #2 I found some components that I believe/know sound like live unamplified music to me, THEN & ONLY THEN "IF" I happened to find two audio components that are similar in price & sound quality, would #3 (the components appearance) play a part in determining which component I'd select. But it was the last area of concern for me. So yes Andy between two audio components that are extremely similar in price & sound quality, I'd allow looks to play a role in my decision making and I'd definitely select the one I thought looked the best. That said, I'd never, ever buy an audio component simply because I liked they way it looked or to own a desirable luxury item. Nor do I believe anyone would that I'd consider to be a serious audiophile/music lover.
Andy would YOU rather own an audio component that's considered a luxury component first over owning an audio component that sounds good & might also expensive and possibly considered a luxury item? If not why do you believe other serious audiophile/music lovers here would? Do you also believe everyone here doesn't buy their car because of it's performance but rather because it was a desirable luxury item? What about their homes, clothes, watches etc? Or do you believe this particular marketing ploy affects and is geared towards audiophiles only?
Andy can you show me some of the many, many ADs for Mastersound Reference 845s, BlueNote Stibberts or Aliante Pinafarina Ones in audio mags or anywhere else for that matter, that marketing created & used to influence my choices of these specific components? I bet you cannot! Or perhaps you can prove that I bought these components NOT primarily for their performance like I stated!??! My audio components would most likely be considered luxury items by many audiophiles standards, so your beliefs should apply here no? I know this marketing ploy you're speaking about definitely exists, but Andy it doesn't apply to the serious audiophile/music lover like you're suggesting, it's aimed towards the newbies who aren't knowledgeable about audio and then end up purchasing audio components like Bose. Or at the other extreme it geared towards the extremely wealthy with lots of disposable income and purchase their audio components for the same reasons they married their trophy wife. Neither of these two groups are what I'd consider to be serious audiophile/music lovers.
========================================================================
Andy for you to claim: "Selling products at a profit is what is important and not technical performance. Actual technical performance is only one factor in why people buy products." is IMO assinine especially when talking about Bob Carver. Bob is known to voice his components to flatter women's vocals which is his particular preference in how a component should replicate sound. That is NOT the action of a man whose primary goal is to sell products. That is the action of a man who loves audio and wants to make and market what he loves. This is one of the reasons that Bob split with Carver (the company) i.e, Bob wasn't inclined to simply make marketable products, Bob Carver wanted to make products that replicated music they way he loved to hear it. So I'm afraid you are quite mistaken in applying your theory so broadly across the board Andy.
All said and done I'm postive marketing works like you described on SOME people such as newbies to audio or people who have a very high disposable income levels and purchase their audio components for the same reasons they married their trophy wife. These are people who probably truly like/love music, but just aren't very knowledgable to qualify to be what most here on Audio Asylum would call a serious audiophile/music lover. So for this group of people the marketing ploy you described probably works like you described. However for the vast majority of people here on Audio Asylum, people who are what I'd describe as very serious audiophiles/music lovers the marketing ploy you described doesn't apply.
Thetubeguy1954
First of all, which test is this and where was it published. I want to read this for myself.
Second, there are other controlled listening tests where there were statistically relevant differences.
"Or do you think the supporters of expensive valve amplifiers who failed to distinguish between the valve and solid state amplifiers were dishonest in their reporting or, perhaps, did not have golden enough ears?
"
Or the system used was sufficiently low in resolution to mask the differences. Do you know what the speakers were or what the room was like? Was it with digital or analog? Or short ABX comparisons do not tell the whole tale about audibility.
Have you actually listened to a TFM modified Carver amp? Tube like they are not. Opaque sounding they are.
Evidently, the challengers did NOT measure the differences, which is what Brad said. It was performed as you mentioned under controlled listening conditions.
So, two tests performed twenty two years ago stands for all time as the final answer. :)
rw
> So, two tests performed twenty two years ago stands for all time as the
> final answer. :)
No. Scientific knowledge established a decade or two earlier and simply confirmed by the experiment is what stood then, stands now and will continue to stand until an experiment is performed which invalidates it. This is how science works but, of course, you have to make an effort to find out what the scientific knowledge is if it is to be useful to you.
There have been zero improvements in amplifier technology since the 60s and 70s. Right.
rw
> There have been zero improvements in amplifier technology since the 60s
> and 70s. Right.
Solid state technology has improved a fair bit (e.g. your computer) which has lead to improvements like the increased use of integrated circuits and more efficient power amplifier designs.
...increased use of integrated circuits
Let's hear it for chip amps!
rw
Overall linearity and complementarity has also improved, but no one gives a shit anymore. They prefer the assorted non-linearities and label them as "more musical" whatever that means.
d.b.
...except the occasional unused, used component. Some folks think I'm reckless. ;-)
P.S. I've been accused of being a shill for Machina Dynamica if that counts for anything on the commercial side.
"I presume you are familiar with the history of relatively cheap commercial solid state amplifiers designed to sound identical to expensive valve amplifiers."
Aside from recent T-amps, I don't recall seeing such claims in product literature for these products.....
"They failed commercially."
I guess by Bose standards, very true.
"People do not buy expensive audiophile equipment because of performance but because they are desirable luxury items."
As if that's horrible.....
"This desire is created primarily by marketing and everybody with a reasonable understanding of the performance of audio equipments has known this since the successful emergence of the audiophile sector in the mid-to-late 70s."
If this alleged emergence was truly successful, we'd now have brick-and-mortars stores selling mostly vinyl, lots of audiophiles, and modern equivalents to Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, the Beatles, and Fritz Reiner.....
This may seem strange, but tubes were not so popular at the time. Tubes became popular later-on because many people didn't like digital audio, and since it became mainstream, they thought only tube electronics would make the new modern medium tolerable.
And only then did the abyss form between high-end and mainstream audio, as evidenced in the demise in magazines like Audio and High-Fidelity.
Audio equipment only became super-expensive because audiophiles have become desperate. With all the RFI flying around, it's not nearly as easy to get good sound as it was in the 1970s. And I can tell you this from first-hand experience.
> Aside from recent T-amps, I don't recall seeing such claims in product
> literature for these products.....
Look up the history of Carver amplifiers.
> > "People do not buy expensive audiophile equipment because of performance
> > but because they are desirable luxury items."
> As if that's horrible.....
It is only you saying that's horrible. Seems quite normal to me for luxury goods like jewellery, watches, etc... The only thing that is unusual about the audiophile sector is the successful marketing of beliefs that are scientifically incorrect.
> If this alleged emergence was truly successful,
It most certainly was successful in preventing a commodity market (e.g. the PC market where price and performance dominate) which is where things were heading at the time. The switch away from actual performance to marketed performance was quite extraordinary and not only allowed western products to compete with Asian imports but created whole new product sectors like magic cables, valve amplifiers and the like.
> And only then did the abyss form between high-end and mainstream audio,
> as evidenced in the demise in magazines like Audio and High-Fidelity.
An identifiable audiophile industry (e.g. magic cables and magic sonic claims) emerged before the CD.
> Audio equipment only became super-expensive because audiophiles have
> become desperate. With all the RFI flying around, it's not nearly as
> easy to get good sound as it was in the 1970s. And I can tell you this
> from first-hand experience.
Super-expensive products exists when there is a market.
Is this RFI audible in the sense of modifying sound waves or does it act directly on the brain without modifying the sound? That is, can we measure the affect with microphones or only brain probes?
"Is this RFI audible in the sense of modifying sound waves or does it act directly on the brain without modifying the sound? That is, can we measure the affect with microphones or only brain probes?"
I don't know.... But then again, 16/48 digital playback shouldn't sound better than 24/48 (DVD playback), but it does. Aside from fewer bits switching (less RFI), I have no idea why I prefer the sound of the truncated data.....
You may also wish to remind him that Bob Carver used negative feedback.
d.b.
Actually, you could probably repeat that experiment for almost any of the various audio sanctities. Use fake expensive cables, a digital track with a few clicks & pops added while fronted by a turntable, a special DAC that isn't, and so on.
After all was said and done, there would likely be a lot of people fooled. In a way, this would be a kind of dirty-trick blind session as you'd be disguising the true identity of the device in question.
What would it prove? Nothing more than we should be careful about declaring our ability to always being able to spot equipment out of sync with our firmer beliefs. As an uncontrolled experiment in an unfamiliar listening environment, no great truths could be proved one way or the other.
When all was said and done, rather than be shaken, most believers would simply be grousing about the deception and trickery.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
