 
|
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 |
87.185.121.47
In Reply to: RE: "They were modified to sound the same as a particular valve amplifier."... posted by Wellfed on May 21, 2007 at 12:42:31
> 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.
| 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 ]
