KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2015 13:35:50 GMT -5
I would guess that depends on what you mean by "transparency".... To me, "transparency" is another way of saying "accuracy" - as in "you see exactly what's there, like hearing it through the acoustic equivalent of seeing it through a perfectly clear glass window". Unfortunately, where this becomes imprecise is that most of us have different priorities concerning how much various types of errors "stand between us and the music". This is one of the reasons I personally hate vinyl - because, ignoring the more subtle distortions and colorations, the first time I hear a crackle or a tick from a scratch, listening becomes like trying to watch something outside a window with a big "X" across the middle of it in masking tape. That tick completely pulls my attention away from the music. Likewise, to me, listening to something on a single ended triode amplifier is like looking at a reflection in a fun house mirror; it may be "fun" but it sure isn't accurate, and I find it palpably annoying. (In contrast, while I prefer a DAC that can deliver transients accurately enough that well recorded cymbals actually sound like metal, I don't find ones that are less than perfect "unlistenable"; and, while I prefer sunglasses that are neutral grey, color tinted ones don't bother me much.) Obviously, until and unless everyone can agree on a common definition of "transparent", one which includes a scale of priorities for each factor involved, the term is really going to remain a subjective one. It would be interesting to see someone try to create a "transparency scale" based on applying specific weights to "low distortion" (perhaps three separate ones for THD, IMD, and transient accuracy, or even different weightings to how much of which harmonics are added), "low noise", "lack of dynamic compression", etc. What you are missing are some before and after measurements. REW graph before and after will tell you exactly what's going on. That is assuming you really want to know vs just saying it is so here. hmmm...i wonder how can we measure transparency ?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 15, 2015 14:57:18 GMT -5
I find comparing power amps to be the easiest of audio comparisons. I just switch the pre amp to mono and connect one power amp to the LF speaker and the other power amp to the RF speaker. Then listen, any differences are obvious.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 15, 2015 18:55:03 GMT -5
I would guess that depends on what you mean by "transparency".... To me, "transparency" is another way of saying "accuracy" - as in "you see exactly what's there, like hearing it through the acoustic equivalent of seeing it through a perfectly clear glass window". Unfortunately, where this becomes imprecise is that most of us have different priorities concerning how much various types of errors "stand between us and the music". This is one of the reasons I personally hate vinyl - because, ignoring the more subtle distortions and colorations, the first time I hear a crackle or a tick from a scratch, listening becomes like trying to watch something outside a window with a big "X" across the middle of it in masking tape. That tick completely pulls my attention away from the music. Likewise, to me, listening to something on a single ended triode amplifier is like looking at a reflection in a fun house mirror; it may be "fun" but it sure isn't accurate, and I find it palpably annoying. (In contrast, while I prefer a DAC that can deliver transients accurately enough that well recorded cymbals actually sound like metal, I don't find ones that are less than perfect "unlistenable"; and, while I prefer sunglasses that are neutral grey, color tinted ones don't bother me much.) Obviously, until and unless everyone can agree on a common definition of "transparent", one which includes a scale of priorities for each factor involved, the term is really going to remain a subjective one. It would be interesting to see someone try to create a "transparency scale" based on applying specific weights to "low distortion" (perhaps three separate ones for THD, IMD, and transient accuracy, or even different weightings to how much of which harmonics are added), "low noise", "lack of dynamic compression", etc. ......and the simple answer is you can NOT measure transparency. because the quality of sound is subjective thing, the quantitative nature of measurements just simply can't perceived what our ears do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2015 20:37:16 GMT -5
I find comparing power amps to be the easiest of audio comparisons. I just switch the pre amp to mono and connect one power amp to the LF speaker and the other power amp to the RF speaker. Then listen, any differences are obvious. Cheers Gary That's a simple and excellent suggestion for comparison and much easier than my involved but fun test described above. However, I might add for the test to temporarily place the L&R speakers adjacent to each other and out from any room boundaries to make sure room factors don't affect the results. Better if you have a helper and don't know which amp is driving which speaker. Now tell us if the Onkyo amp still sounds clearly superior, I doubt it very much although perhaps there might be some very slight differences presuming there is no amplifier clipping.
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 16, 2015 12:12:17 GMT -5
Yep optically opacity, and transparency sure. Need the science guys here to clear the fog on that Audio side.
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Feb 16, 2015 16:53:01 GMT -5
I would guess that depends on what you mean by "transparency".... To me, "transparency" is another way of saying "accuracy" - as in "you see exactly what's there, like hearing it through the acoustic equivalent of seeing it through a perfectly clear glass window". Unfortunately, where this becomes imprecise is that most of us have different priorities concerning how much various types of errors "stand between us and the music". This is one of the reasons I personally hate vinyl - because, ignoring the more subtle distortions and colorations, the first time I hear a crackle or a tick from a scratch, listening becomes like trying to watch something outside a window with a big "X" across the middle of it in masking tape. That tick completely pulls my attention away from the music. Likewise, to me, listening to something on a single ended triode amplifier is like looking at a reflection in a fun house mirror; it may be "fun" but it sure isn't accurate, and I find it palpably annoying. (In contrast, while I prefer a DAC that can deliver transients accurately enough that well recorded cymbals actually sound like metal, I don't find ones that are less than perfect "unlistenable"; and, while I prefer sunglasses that are neutral grey, color tinted ones don't bother me much.) Obviously, until and unless everyone can agree on a common definition of "transparent", one which includes a scale of priorities for each factor involved, the term is really going to remain a subjective one. It would be interesting to see someone try to create a "transparency scale" based on applying specific weights to "low distortion" (perhaps three separate ones for THD, IMD, and transient accuracy, or even different weightings to how much of which harmonics are added), "low noise", "lack of dynamic compression", etc. ......and the simple answer is you can NOT measure transparency. because the quality of sound is subjective thing, the quantitative nature of measurements just simply can't perceived what our ears do. I agree. It's all based on preference. Maybe I just hear things differently, who knows. My opinion on vinyl is just the opposite. What's odd is I must have adapted over time, because I don't hear those pops or any groove noise anymore. I unknowingly have adjusted to hearing around them. Obviously, there are some used unlistenable albums I purchased that are in the garbage because of past abuse. This what I posted on another site with a similar debate: "I have gone to several concerts and listened to the same music when I got home. I don't even pretend to understand why, but vinyl sounds much more like the live experience to me. I equate it to watching an LED vs an LCD TV. An LED TV may have better brightness, better black level and far better edge enhancement. So, technically it is more precise. When I look at it though, "I think, damn that is so rediculousely clear. I don't see anywhere near that clear if I look at the same thing in person". That is precisely the experience I have with the digital version vs vinyl. It is so pristine it's unnatural. I still buy the CD if vinyl isn't available, and do enjoy it. However, I consider it a compromise to what I hear live. I can't tell you how many audiophiles take the path of wanting more and more detail. I went down that path and I ended up constantly grasping at some unobtainable end. However, when I started focusing on recreating what I hear in person, my enjoyment factor went way up. To me, vinyl playback gets closer to recreating that live experience." I don't really care why it sounds the way it does, additive distortion or whatever. I just know that to me, vinyl sounds more real to life, which is my personal goal for my system.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 16, 2015 16:56:18 GMT -5
Just play a tune and enjoy!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2015 23:54:44 GMT -5
Another thing to consider is that very few of us would go to a concert and listen to each instrument from two feet away - but that's precisely where a lot of those "close miked" microphones are. This produces all sorts of differences between the final mix and what you would have heard live. First, the air itself has a frequency response, so the balance between primaries and harmonics are going to be different. Second, what you hear from the audience is a mixture of the sound arriving directly from each instrument with sound arriving after bouncing off walls, floor, and ceiling. The end result of all that bouncing around can be very complex - especially when you realize that different instruments "launch" different parts of their sound into the room in different directions. (You'll hear something different standing behind a piano than above one; and something way different depending on whether you stand in front of or behind a horn.) In a typical recording, each instrument is recorded by one or more "close mikes", intended to pick up mostly direct sound. Some separate mikes are then used to record "room ambience", which is then mixed back in with the others when the mix is mixed. Added to that is probably some "artificially created" room ambience as well. The odds of this resulting in something that sounds identical to the original live performance are actually pretty slim. In fact, what you're going to hear is whatever the recording engineer wants you to hear. You could get a reasonable facsimile of reality by using two microphones appropriately placed, and an even better one by using two microphones placed in the ears of a dummy head, but few recordings these days are made that way. Honestly, I would suspect that, if a specific recording on vinyl "sounds more like live", it's probably simply because the vinyl-processing signal chain adds significant and audible distortion... and, in at least some cases, that distortion happens to "replace" some of the differences between the live performance and the recording. In specific, many people have observed that adding second harmonic distortion makes music sound "more live" and "more dynamic". My main problem with this solution is that it is imprecise; it's like putting a plate of yellow glass in front of a painting "because the yellow pigment is probably faded"... it's sort of random whether the alteration will really bring you closer to the actual original or not. (I recall the distinctive and characteristic sound of some older horn loudspeakers. Play a Tijuana Brass record through them and it sounds soooooo real..... but, sadly, they make voices sound "honky"..... because, apparently, they add "horn sound" to whatever you play through them.... whether it belongs there or not. This makes poor recordings of horns actually sound better than they are, but at the expense of doing the opposite to other types of recordings.) I don't fault people who prefer a system that specifically favors the type of music they normally listen to.... but it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "high fidelity" as being "accurate" in general very well. ......and the simple answer is you can NOT measure transparency. because the quality of sound is subjective thing, the quantitative nature of measurements just simply can't perceived what our ears do. I agree. It's all based on preference. Maybe I just hear things differently, who knows. My opinion on vinyl is just the opposite. What's odd is I must have adapted over time, because I don't hear those pops or any groove noise anymore. I unknowingly have adjusted to hearing around them. Obviously, there are some used unlistenable albums I purchased that are in the garbage because of past abuse. This what I posted on another site with a similar debate: "I have gone to several concerts and listened to the same music when I got home. I don't even pretend to understand why, but vinyl sounds much more like the live experience to me. I equate it to watching an LED vs an LCD TV. An LED TV may have better brightness, better black level and far better edge enhancement. So, technically it is more precise. When I look at it though, "I think, damn that is so rediculousely clear. I don't see anywhere near that clear if I look at the same thing in person". That is precisely the experience I have with the digital version vs vinyl. It is so pristine it's unnatural. I still buy the CD if vinyl isn't available, and do enjoy it. However, I consider it a compromise to what I hear live. I can't tell you how many audiophiles take the path of wanting more and more detail. I went down that path and I ended up constantly grasping at some unobtainable end. However, when I started focusing on recreating what I hear in person, my enjoyment factor went way up. To me, vinyl playback gets closer to recreating that live experience." I don't really care why it sounds the way it does, additive distortion or whatever. I just know that to me, vinyl sounds more real to life, which is my personal goal for my system.
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 17, 2015 8:53:19 GMT -5
......and the simple answer is you can NOT measure transparency. because the quality of sound is subjective thing, the quantitative nature of measurements just simply can't perceived what our ears do. I agree. It's all based on preference. Maybe I just hear things differently, who knows. My opinion on vinyl is just the opposite. What's odd is I must have adapted over time, because I don't hear those pops or any groove noise anymore. I unknowingly have adjusted to hearing around them. Obviously, there are some used unlistenable albums I purchased that are in the garbage because of past abuse. This what I posted on another site with a similar debate: "I have gone to several concerts and listened to the same music when I got home. I don't even pretend to understand why, but vinyl sounds much more like the live experience to me. I equate it to watching an LED vs an LCD TV. An LED TV may have better brightness, better black level and far better edge enhancement. So, technically it is more precise. When I look at it though, "I think, damn that is so rediculousely clear. I don't see anywhere near that clear if I look at the same thing in person". That is precisely the experience I have with the digital version vs vinyl. It is so pristine it's unnatural. I still buy the CD if vinyl isn't available, and do enjoy it. However, I consider it a compromise to what I hear live. I can't tell you how many audiophiles take the path of wanting more and more detail. I went down that path and I ended up constantly grasping at some unobtainable end. However, when I started focusing on recreating what I hear in person, my enjoyment factor went way up. To me, vinyl playback gets closer to recreating that live experience." I don't really care why it sounds the way it does, additive distortion or whatever. I just know that to me, vinyl sounds more real to life, which is my personal goal for my system. yup, because that is what really matters the advantage of analog over digital is in the time domain. most dacs and cd players use digital filters that causing ringing and reduce the enjoyment of music. now, digital people will argue that cd's have low noise etc so it's superior. cd's are good on frequency domain but very suck in time domain. we have been discussing this in this thread : emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/39124/dsd-sacd-pcmand this is coming one of those digital guy
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2015 9:57:54 GMT -5
What you are missing are some before and after measurements. REW graph before and after will tell you exactly what's going on. That is assuming you really want to know vs just saying it is so here. hmmm...i wonder how can we measure transparency ? If you can't measure it most likely it isn't audible. But that doesn't mean you believe it is. Your mind can hear what it wants to hear. Check out the link in my sig to see what I mean. You can't measure that because it is your mind that makes it up.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2015 12:06:00 GMT -5
There's only one fallacy to your statement - but, unfortunately, it's a pretty big one.... Yes, it's entirely true that digital filters have less than perfect transient response. However, the problem with your claim is that, while it is certainly possible for an "analog audio SIGNAL" (in an analog preamp or an analog amplifier) to have near perfect transient response, the same cannot be said at all for analog RECORDINGS. Have you ever actually seen the transient response of a vinyl recording? How about the shape of an impulse played through a phono cartridge? In a vinyl signal chain, the audio has to pass through a powerful amplifier, and into a highly inductive motor, driving a mechanically heavy cutter head, before it even reaches the vinyl. After that, the shape of the groove in the master is mechanically replicated onto a sheet of vinyl. Now, in the cartridge, a tiny diamond stylus, attached to a metal or boron rod, has to wiggle up and down very fast, moving a tiny motor mechanism in a magnetic field, which then turns that movement back into a (presumably accurate) electrical signal. Attempting to follow a high frequency transient accurately requires that the stylus experience a massive amount of aceleration, which requires that it be held against the surface using a lot of force, both of which result in significant distortion of both the actual surface of the groove and the various mechanisms in the stylus itself. Of course, the inductance and magnetic nonlinearities in the recording and playback heads of even the best reel-to-reel tape recorders also introduce all sorts of phase shift and transient errors there as well. So, before you bemoan how badly a digital filter messes up transient response, try and find an actual image of the transient response of a record or tape recording to compare it to. You might find some of these articles interesting... especially the parts where they discuss the limitations and problems with the transient ability of ANALOG recordings. The first one, which discusses how to optimize your content for mastering onto vinyl (by a company that still does vinyl mastering) is especially informative. www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htmwww.fast-and-wide.com/wideangle/2969-vinyl-vs-cd-the-wrong-conclusionswiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29I agree. It's all based on preference. Maybe I just hear things differently, who knows. My opinion on vinyl is just the opposite. What's odd is I must have adapted over time, because I don't hear those pops or any groove noise anymore. I unknowingly have adjusted to hearing around them. Obviously, there are some used unlistenable albums I purchased that are in the garbage because of past abuse. This what I posted on another site with a similar debate: "I have gone to several concerts and listened to the same music when I got home. I don't even pretend to understand why, but vinyl sounds much more like the live experience to me. I equate it to watching an LED vs an LCD TV. An LED TV may have better brightness, better black level and far better edge enhancement. So, technically it is more precise. When I look at it though, "I think, damn that is so rediculousely clear. I don't see anywhere near that clear if I look at the same thing in person". That is precisely the experience I have with the digital version vs vinyl. It is so pristine it's unnatural. I still buy the CD if vinyl isn't available, and do enjoy it. However, I consider it a compromise to what I hear live. I can't tell you how many audiophiles take the path of wanting more and more detail. I went down that path and I ended up constantly grasping at some unobtainable end. However, when I started focusing on recreating what I hear in person, my enjoyment factor went way up. To me, vinyl playback gets closer to recreating that live experience." I don't really care why it sounds the way it does, additive distortion or whatever. I just know that to me, vinyl sounds more real to life, which is my personal goal for my system. yup, because that is what really matters the advantage of analog over digital is in the time domain. most dacs and cd players use digital filters that causing ringing and reduce the enjoyment of music. now, digital people will argue that cd's have low noise etc so it's superior. cd's are good on frequency domain but very suck in time domain. we have been discussing this in this thread : emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/39124/dsd-sacd-pcmand this is coming one of those digital guy
|
|
|
Post by tchaik on Feb 17, 2015 12:16:37 GMT -5
1+. Salma has a pair of the most spectacular meters ever. I think Salma Hayek has a great voice. Then again, it MAY BE placebo effect:my wife would be upset if she caught me looking at those placebos…….. tchaik…….
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 17, 2015 13:28:46 GMT -5
There's only one fallacy to your statement - but, unfortunately, it's a pretty big one.... Yes, it's entirely true that digital filters have less than perfect transient response. However, the problem with your claim is that, while it is certainly possible for an "analog audio SIGNAL" (in an analog preamp or an analog amplifier) to have near perfect transient response, the same cannot be said at all for analog RECORDINGS. Have you ever actually seen the transient response of a vinyl recording? How about the shape of an impulse played through a phono cartridge? In a vinyl signal chain, the audio has to pass through a powerful amplifier, and into a highly inductive motor, driving a mechanically heavy cutter head, before it even reaches the vinyl. After that, the shape of the groove in the master is mechanically replicated onto a sheet of vinyl. Now, in the cartridge, a tiny diamond stylus, attached to a metal or boron rod, has to wiggle up and down very fast, moving a tiny motor mechanism in a magnetic field, which then turns that movement back into a (presumably accurate) electrical signal. Attempting to follow a high frequency transient accurately requires that the stylus experience a massive amount of aceleration, which requires that it be held against the surface using a lot of force, both of which result in significant distortion of both the actual surface of the groove and the various mechanisms in the stylus itself. Of course, the inductance and magnetic nonlinearities in the recording and playback heads of even the best reel-to-reel tape recorders also introduce all sorts of phase shift and transient errors there as well. So, before you bemoan how badly a digital filter messes up transient response, try and find an actual image of the transient response of a record or tape recording to compare it to. You might find some of these articles interesting... especially the parts where they discuss the limitations and problems with the transient ability of ANALOG recordings. The first one, which discusses how to optimize your content for mastering onto vinyl (by a company that still does vinyl mastering) is especially informative. www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htmwww.fast-and-wide.com/wideangle/2969-vinyl-vs-cd-the-wrong-conclusionswiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29yup, because that is what really matters the advantage of analog over digital is in the time domain. most dacs and cd players use digital filters that causing ringing and reduce the enjoyment of music. now, digital people will argue that cd's have low noise etc so it's superior. cd's are good on frequency domain but very suck in time domain. we have been discussing this in this thread : emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/39124/dsd-sacd-pcmand this is coming one of those digital guy keith, from the first link : " Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a problem." i don't see it as a problem because theorically human can only hear up to 20 khz. hell, most of us can only hear up to 15 khz. while cd's ringing is down to the midrange. the second link is more like how to listen through an oscilloscope from a guy who appear to sell digital equipments. he talked about bass and square waves. and the third link i have read that over and over again because i also a member of hydrogen audio. it's very narrow 2 dimensional facts that doesn't give much importance to the third dimension : time. btw i never visit hydrogen forum anymore. less knowledge compared to site like computeraudiophile.
|
|
|
Post by ncred02 on Feb 17, 2015 13:46:05 GMT -5
I had the Onkyo and wish I didnt sell it. It was a keeper. Different sound. Thats music to your ears, thats all
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 17, 2015 13:47:07 GMT -5
hmmm...i wonder how can we measure transparency ? If you can't measure it most likely it isn't audible.But that doesn't mean you believe it is. Your mind can hear what it wants to hear. Check out the link in my sig to see what I mean. You can't measure that because it is your mind that makes it up. well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2015 14:15:06 GMT -5
If you can't measure it most likely it isn't audible.But that doesn't mean you believe it is. Your mind can hear what it wants to hear. Check out the link in my sig to see what I mean. You can't measure that because it is your mind that makes it up. well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. Did you click on the link in my signature? Ever heard of the mcgurk effect? It applies here if you think you hear something that can't be measured (or measures exactly the same) Your mind can fool you. Just try it for yourself. youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0After seeing this ask yourself again. Is hearing believing?
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,188
Member is Online
|
Post by geebo on Feb 17, 2015 14:31:35 GMT -5
If you can't measure it most likely it isn't audible.But that doesn't mean you believe it is. Your mind can hear what it wants to hear. Check out the link in my sig to see what I mean. You can't measure that because it is your mind that makes it up. well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2015 15:07:39 GMT -5
Just to clarify, I'm not saying there can't be a difference. All I'm saying if there is it can be measured and explained. I'm just not buying a difference based on using different adjectives.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2015 15:22:34 GMT -5
Gee.... I can think of a whole bunch of different things you can measure (and you can measure the standard ones under quite a few different conditions)... but "muddiness" isn't one of them. In fact, if you do hear a difference between capacitors, I'd be pretty sure it would show up in the frequency response and distortion numbers. Bad capacitors can have too much inductance, which is going to affect the frequency response, or they can be non-linear, which is going to affect the distortion, or they could have high DC resistance (which probably won't be much of a problem for a coupling capacitor). In the case of an electrolytic capacitor, if it isn't good enough, it will almost certainly be because of some sort of non-linearity near the lower end of its operating voltage range, which will be obvious as THD that rises sharply at very low signal levels. (The point is that, if you run a series of THD vs Frequency plots at different power levels, you most certainly WILL see the difference... because, if that capacitor is bad enough that the difference is audible, then that difference really is going to be simply excessive amounts of plain old distortion at certain frequencies and voltage levels.... which will be easy enough to measure if you measure the right things.) The only thing that makes it difficult to equate sound quality with measurements is that we are surprisingly insensitive to even large quantities of some types of distortion. (So, for example, 0.5% THD because of a bad capacitor may sound pretty bad, while 0.5% second harmonic distortion in a tube amp might be barely noticeable, or might even sound good to some people. The tricky bit is knowing which 0.5% to worry about and which 0.5% not to worry about.... but both will be easily measured if you set out to do so. In other words, there's no problem whatsoever measuring anything that has even a slight chance of being audible with modern test equipment; the "problem" is in deciding what to measure, and in knowing which measurements matter in a particular situation.) well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2015 15:59:48 GMT -5
I would honestly be very surprised if you can find a combination of turntable and cartridge than can produce a cleaner transient AT ANY FREQUENCY than even a mediocre CD player. Both a record cutter head and a phono cartridge are mechanical devices, with various mechanical and electrical resonances and nonlinearities, and neither is capable of producing clean transients without overshoot, undershoot, or ringing. If you want to complain about a little ringing on the output of a DAC, then I really need to ask you to show me a picture of a similar output from a phono cartridge, and show me that it has less ringing (while still delivering a reasonably flat frequency response). To be honest, I'm not trying to say that CDs are perfect; just that vinyl is consistently worse, across the board, in virtually every characteristic that can be measured.... So, again, in what way is "the timing" on a vinyl record better than that on a CD? There's only one fallacy to your statement - but, unfortunately, it's a pretty big one.... Yes, it's entirely true that digital filters have less than perfect transient response. However, the problem with your claim is that, while it is certainly possible for an "analog audio SIGNAL" (in an analog preamp or an analog amplifier) to have near perfect transient response, the same cannot be said at all for analog RECORDINGS. Have you ever actually seen the transient response of a vinyl recording? How about the shape of an impulse played through a phono cartridge? In a vinyl signal chain, the audio has to pass through a powerful amplifier, and into a highly inductive motor, driving a mechanically heavy cutter head, before it even reaches the vinyl. After that, the shape of the groove in the master is mechanically replicated onto a sheet of vinyl. Now, in the cartridge, a tiny diamond stylus, attached to a metal or boron rod, has to wiggle up and down very fast, moving a tiny motor mechanism in a magnetic field, which then turns that movement back into a (presumably accurate) electrical signal. Attempting to follow a high frequency transient accurately requires that the stylus experience a massive amount of aceleration, which requires that it be held against the surface using a lot of force, both of which result in significant distortion of both the actual surface of the groove and the various mechanisms in the stylus itself. Of course, the inductance and magnetic nonlinearities in the recording and playback heads of even the best reel-to-reel tape recorders also introduce all sorts of phase shift and transient errors there as well. So, before you bemoan how badly a digital filter messes up transient response, try and find an actual image of the transient response of a record or tape recording to compare it to. You might find some of these articles interesting... especially the parts where they discuss the limitations and problems with the transient ability of ANALOG recordings. The first one, which discusses how to optimize your content for mastering onto vinyl (by a company that still does vinyl mastering) is especially informative. www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htmwww.fast-and-wide.com/wideangle/2969-vinyl-vs-cd-the-wrong-conclusionswiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29keith, from the first link : " Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a problem." i don't see it as a problem because theorically human can only hear up to 20 khz. hell, most of us can only hear up to 15 khz. while cd's ringing is down to the midrange. the second link is more like how to listen through an oscilloscope from a guy who appear to sell digital equipments. he talked about bass and square waves. and the third link i have read that over and over again because i also a member of hydrogen audio. it's very narrow 2 dimensional facts that doesn't give much importance to the third dimension : time. btw i never visit hydrogen forum anymore. less knowledge compared to site like computeraudiophile.
|
|