Infiniteloop
Well-known member
hg said:
If Harbeth believe that ' All Amplifiers sound the same' - Do they recommend one? - And if so, is it the cheapest iteration that is up to the job?
And if they don't, or if it isn't, - why not?
If Harbeth believe that ' All Amplifiers sound the same' - Do they recommend one? - And if so, is it the cheapest iteration that is up to the job?
And if they don't, or if it isn't, - why not?
Macspur
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
Hi Cno,
Went to demo the Olympica I's but soon found myself pretty underwhelmed with them, so rather dangerously decided to hear the Guarneri Evolutions.
The set up was an MF CDP as transport fed into the Hugo DAC with the MF6500.
Where the Olympica's fell apart with anything that became complex or loud, the Evolutions handled any type of music thrown at it... crystal clear, lush wide soundstage and tight base, but at over 12K a pair, you'd be disappointed with anything less.
Mac
www.macsmusic.blogbubble.net
www.mintfm.net
Macspur said:
Very interesting.....now stop going for sneaky sessions of great stuff, without letting us know!! *wink*
Infiniteloop said:
There is no chance that "Harbeth", presumably Alan Shaw, or pretty much anyone else for that matter, believes that "all amplifiers sound the same". The interesting question is why you are claiming that they do?
Anderson said:
It is an unusual home audio forum but not being able to see the attachments without registering detracts from the read. Unfortunately registering requires details I am not prepared to give just to access a few attachments.
Anderson said:
Editing posts is a not good because what is presented as being written by the poster is not what they wrote or, as in this case, even what they meant. Either the poster fixes it themselves to be in line with what they agreed when registering or it is deleted would be a more reasonable approach in my view.
Infiniteloop
Well-known member
hg said:
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2505-The-last-words-on-audio-amplifiers-Jan-2015[/URL
Please read the third post down the Harbeth thread.
Infiniteloop said:
I have and nowhere can I see where it says that all amplifiers sound the same. What have you seen that means to you Alan Shaw says all amplifiers sound the same? Can you please quote it.
Most competently designed amplifiers operating away from clipping and into a reasonable speaker load will not be audibly distinguishable in a blind comparison. This doesn't mean amplifiers designed to be less than competent won't sound different. I cannot imagine anyone claiming something as silly as a SET amplifier operating with huge amounts of distortion will sound the same as a competently designed amplifier.
matt49
Well-known member
I’m intrigued by AS’s response to Devialet’s SAM system.
“Harbeth's official position is that we have had no contact with Devialet nor do we think that they have actually used or measured any Harbeth speaker. We are unwilling to engage with any third party who believes that they can adjust any of our products with no knowledge of the design, design objectives and electromechanical capabilities of the speaker. Be very careful as use of such a system could result in damage not covered by our Warranty.”
I can understand the argument that using SAM might be outside the terms of the warranty, up to a point. If you turned the bass tone control on your amp right up and played music really loud, you’d risk damaging your speakers, and a manufacturer would be within its rights to say that you’d been using the speakers outside the terms of the warranty. But this argument only holds if you don’t understand how SAM works (and AS admits he doesn’t). SAM comprises protection that prevents damaging over-excursion of woofers at high volumes. There's no risk of damage.
As was also pointed out in the HUG thread, any claims under a Harbeth warranty have to be assessed by an authorized Harbeth dealer. Several UK Harbeth dealers are also authorized Devialet dealers. I wonder whether they’re giving the same advice to their customers as AS is. Probably not.
The idea that SAM “adjusts” speakers is also a bit odd: it only adjusts speakers in the sense that volume controls, tone controls and DSP room correction adjust speakers.
But the oddest part is the statement that “we think that they have [not] actually used or measured any Harbeth speaker”. This directly contradicts what Devialet have said. Why would AS want to suggest that Devialet aren’t telling the truth? And how could he possibly know? It’s well known that some individuals have lent Devialet their speakers for SAM-ing. How could AS possibly know that no Harbeth owners have done this?
I'd understand if AS were saying he thought SAM didn't improve the performance of Harbeths. But that's not what he's saying.
“Harbeth's official position is that we have had no contact with Devialet nor do we think that they have actually used or measured any Harbeth speaker. We are unwilling to engage with any third party who believes that they can adjust any of our products with no knowledge of the design, design objectives and electromechanical capabilities of the speaker. Be very careful as use of such a system could result in damage not covered by our Warranty.”
I can understand the argument that using SAM might be outside the terms of the warranty, up to a point. If you turned the bass tone control on your amp right up and played music really loud, you’d risk damaging your speakers, and a manufacturer would be within its rights to say that you’d been using the speakers outside the terms of the warranty. But this argument only holds if you don’t understand how SAM works (and AS admits he doesn’t). SAM comprises protection that prevents damaging over-excursion of woofers at high volumes. There's no risk of damage.
As was also pointed out in the HUG thread, any claims under a Harbeth warranty have to be assessed by an authorized Harbeth dealer. Several UK Harbeth dealers are also authorized Devialet dealers. I wonder whether they’re giving the same advice to their customers as AS is. Probably not.
The idea that SAM “adjusts” speakers is also a bit odd: it only adjusts speakers in the sense that volume controls, tone controls and DSP room correction adjust speakers.
But the oddest part is the statement that “we think that they have [not] actually used or measured any Harbeth speaker”. This directly contradicts what Devialet have said. Why would AS want to suggest that Devialet aren’t telling the truth? And how could he possibly know? It’s well known that some individuals have lent Devialet their speakers for SAM-ing. How could AS possibly know that no Harbeth owners have done this?
I'd understand if AS were saying he thought SAM didn't improve the performance of Harbeths. But that's not what he's saying.
Infiniteloop
Well-known member
hg said:
Are you saying that SET amplifiers are not designed competently?
Alan A. Shaw is basically saying that the only difference we can hear between different Amplifiers is loudness, and that this somehow fools the brain into thinking they sound different.
Quote:
"Again gentlemen, can I implore you to take on board the facts, which have been laid out here in numerous threads covering amplifiers and human hearing. They are unarguably the objective truth, and you ignore them at your financial peril!
To state, briefly, yet again: it is absolutely meaningless[/i] to hook up two amplifiers, regardless of brand, technology, shape, size, colour or price in the absence of knowledge of their internal GAIN [/b]from input to output and then draw any meaningful conclusions about their subjective sonic performance. And when I say meaningless, I honestly do mean meaningless[/i] and it's ten times worse to them report that in a way which could suck others into making the same error.
And the reason, yet again, is this: if one amp is hugely more powerful than the other (which is claimed here) for any given rotation of the volume control, the output signal at the speaker terminals will be, obviously (?) LOUDER. And that's what you are hearing. The music is LOUDER, the sensation in your brain is DIFFERENT and your subjective experience is ALTERED. This then leads to the unjustified and almost certainly entirely false logical error that one amp has sonic superior over the other, because that is what the different SENSATION in your brain fools you into asserting. But that is, all previous researchers have concluded, a logical and factual fallacy exposed by carefully controlling the loudness so that it exactly matches."
End Quote.
Vladimir said:
no, my "audiophile" beliefs were not challenged because I am NOT one (audiophile) and I do not believe in snake oil. I simply enjoy listening to music.
I like the HUG's or for that matter any other objective forum's take on cables, sprays, crystals, teddy bears, incense sticks and their impact on sound quality.
what bothered me is the completely irrational approach to any discussion. People who claim themselves to be rational need to remain open to diverse perspectives and only use logic to put forward arguments - Truly objective people do not take "my way or highway" approach. And it is slightly difficult not to be reminded of the word "ARROGANCE" when you come across people who believe that "they alone know it all and are the true torch-bearers of high fidelity and the hundreds of audio electronics designers ( who also have dedicated their lives to research and design) either have no idea what they are doing or worse are downright snake oil sellers".
Someone commented eralier in this thread that amplifiers like Croft and Devialet distort the sound. That may well be the case -but if it is so - then give me distorted sound any day. ;-)
Om, there's a lot of non-sequitor objectivity around in the field of hi-fi.
Where someone takes the results of highly limited test results and applies them way beyond what the test was actually testing.
There's a lot of self-justification going on along the lines of: "I've bought X. X is the best because... And Y, which is different to X is worse becuase..."
There's usually no arguing with these people. They have their firmly held belief system.
That's fine, Om. They can say and think whatever they want. And you and I can think whatever we want too. It's just that we can't say what we think on the HUG, and a few other hi-fi related forums / user groups.
It's just as well there are forums like the What Hi-fi one where a wide range of views can be freely expressed.
Where someone takes the results of highly limited test results and applies them way beyond what the test was actually testing.
There's a lot of self-justification going on along the lines of: "I've bought X. X is the best because... And Y, which is different to X is worse becuase..."
There's usually no arguing with these people. They have their firmly held belief system.
That's fine, Om. They can say and think whatever they want. And you and I can think whatever we want too. It's just that we can't say what we think on the HUG, and a few other hi-fi related forums / user groups.
It's just as well there are forums like the What Hi-fi one where a wide range of views can be freely expressed.
Infiniteloop said:
It would depend on the purpose of the design. For example, for a high fidelity linear amplifier they would be an incompetent choice because they are low power and high distortion. But potential customers of such amplifiers are not interested in high fidelity linear amplifiers. They are interested in other things and if the design successfully addresses these other things then it would be quite reasonable to call it a competent design. Just not a competent design of a high fidelity linear amplifier.
Infiniteloop said:
No he is not. You have provided the quote and what you claim is not there. He is saying that if the amplifiers are not the playing at the same level then this difference will dominate as, I suspect, pretty much every hi-fi salesman in the world is well aware.
Which brings us back to the far more interesting question of why you are claiming something that is not true. One explanation would be dishonesty but I think that unlikely because when asked for evidence you would be more likely to have gone quiet or tried to divert the discussion. Another is that your comprehension of everything is poor which I also think unlikely. I think it more likely your reading comprehension is only selectively poor when your faith/beliefs intervene but I don't know how the mechanism works.
I presume you believe those objectionable objectivists claim "all amplifiers sound the same" because your have seen people in your subjectivist tribe make the claim. It has formed part of what you believe without any evidence. But when you read Alan Shaw's rant some sort of filtering took place that blocked your reading what was written. Fascinating stuff.
Om said:
How have you determined that you do not believe in snake oil?
Om said:
Why? Wouldn't it be better to have the option of hearing what was recorded plus the option to dial in with a knob controlled amounts of distortion? Given that people do not generally express a preference for distorted sound in blind tests how much do you think you might use that knob over time?
hg said:
I agree, it is fascinating. It is just a defense mechanism though, usually applied when somebodies subjective beliefs are shown to be wrong, so instead of accepting the new information, they will just lash out in an attempt to keep re-enforcing their beliefs by making silly straw man arguments, or throwing their toys out of the pram.
cheeseboy said:
That looks like a later stage of frustration where dialogue has broken down. At this earlier stage communication is, I think, still taking place and the shutters have not gone down because infiniteloop still feels he can use reason to put forward why he is right rather than having faith in being right but without being able to express why.
I very much doubt people that have faith in "subjective" audiophile beliefs will accept their beliefs have been shown to be wrong by the evidence of "objectivists" simply because they cannot put forward evidence to the contrary. This is not how faith works and "subjectivists" kind of know they are relatively weak on the reasoning side and so just because they cannot work something out it does not mean that what/who they look to cannot.
hg said:
oh, i agree, but there are some cases whereby you can prove it and even then, it's not accepted. To me that's even more fascinating, why somebody would actively be in denial over such a trivial matter.
There was a discussion on pfm about Alan Shaw's views on amplifiers.
I agree with Arkless Repairs post #303 on that thread: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=168601&page=21
Inparticular this bit: "I have built prototypes whose measured performance was impeccable (THD too low to measure with equipment at hand at the time at below 0.001%, FR DC - 100KHz+, damping factor 500+ etc) and yet it's sounded below par..."
I agree with Arkless Repairs post #303 on that thread: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=168601&page=21
Inparticular this bit: "I have built prototypes whose measured performance was impeccable (THD too low to measure with equipment at hand at the time at below 0.001%, FR DC - 100KHz+, damping factor 500+ etc) and yet it's sounded below par..."
cheeseboy said:
It has been proved in the way "objectivists" reason but not in the way "subjectivists" reason. So what is it worth to a subjectivist? Denial would mean the "subjectivist" has accepted the proof which is generally not the case. Occassionally the proof can be forced on the "subjectivist" with an experiment but even here this tends to lead to bafflement rather than acceptance of cold hard reality.
hg said:
kind of yes. And I say kind of because there are some things that certain subjectivists believe that if it were true, things like the Internet just wouldn't work. So, i'd actually argue in that case that the subjectivits in that case were not using any reason at all and just a knee jerk "how can I be wrong" reaction.
hg said:
Like i say, don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you and I find the psychological side of these things fascinating. Esepcially some of the leaps of faith that people have with hifi put certain religions and religious zealots I've met to shame
lindsayt said:
What is being claimed?
(1) That he likes to hear distorted sound rather than undistorted sound.
(2) That an amplifier with distortion well below what would be conventionally considered audibile sounds different to another amplifiers with distortion well below what would conventionally be considered audible.
(1) is fair enough but the results of blind tests from the likes of Harman suggest that this is not usually the case. There is a simple way to show that the extraordinary claim in (2) is true with an experiment. This has not been done instead there is an appeal to magic for the technically illiterate (the literate would of course recognise that these sources of distortion were being included anyway when the input was compared to the output to determine the distortion). I don't know the chap but this looks a bit suspicious given his interests but then again he may just have lost the plot.
Objectivist vs Subjectivist
Geek vs Elitist
Knowledge vs Shopping Power
Why it sounds vs How it sounds
So eventually this is a Hi-Fi shopping site/forum/magazine. Why are any objectivists here at all? No one asks why does this thing sound like it sounds and why should they pay that sum of money. Everyone cares how it sounds (to someone) and how much should they pay for that experience.
Now please all barbaric objectivists leave Rome and crawl back to their nomadic lands. Leave the subjectivist baths, fountains, parliaments and orgies as they were. You've caused enough fatalities and structural damage with your reasoning instead of experiencing things.
Geek vs Elitist
Knowledge vs Shopping Power
Why it sounds vs How it sounds
So eventually this is a Hi-Fi shopping site/forum/magazine. Why are any objectivists here at all? No one asks why does this thing sound like it sounds and why should they pay that sum of money. Everyone cares how it sounds (to someone) and how much should they pay for that experience.
subjectivist said:
Now please all barbaric objectivists leave Rome and crawl back to their nomadic lands. Leave the subjectivist baths, fountains, parliaments and orgies as they were. You've caused enough fatalities and structural damage with your reasoning instead of experiencing things.
matt49
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
Dont stop them! I was enjoying that. There's nothing quite so edifying as watching a couple of self-styled objectivists doing pop psychology.
cheeseboy said:
Sorry to labour the point but you are wrong to claim someone with faith is not reasoning because they are not reasoning in a rational manner. Looking to what the faith tells you is reasoning.
If a "subjectivist" doesn't know how the internet works how can they use it to support or falsify a point in an argument? If you want to persuade them then you must use arguments based on their reasoning and not your own. Which raises the interesting question of how does their reasoning work when it comes to people of another tribe claiming all amplifiers sound the same. I think I can see parts but not the whole picture. It would be interesting to see the whole picture.
cheeseboy said:Like i say, don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you and I find the psychological side of these things fascinating. Esepcially some of the leaps of faith that people have with hifi put certain religions and religious zealots I've met to shame
Indeed. Conventional established religions generally ask a person to have faith in matters outside the physical domain. This is open to scientists and non-scientists alike even though the former tend to be a bit doubtful they cannot show the faith is false. Audiophile beliefs on the other hand often ask a person to have faith in matters that are in the physical domain and which can be straightforward to show are false using the scientific method. This forces those wanting to hold audiophile beliefs to choose between science or audiophile beliefs. It is why there are no technically literate audiophiles apart from one or two on the supply side.
matt49 said:
iirc you're much more qualified than I on such matters, so any input is greatly apprecaited
(serious btw, unless it's somebody else but I seem to recall this being.or was your line of work, apologies if I got you confused with somebody else).Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Ortofon m2 black sibilance cartridge or stylus? or something else
- Started by speedthing
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram