Harbeth - great soeakers but possibly the worst customer experience

[Vladimir]

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.

Dont stop them! I was enjoying that. There's nothing quite so edifying as watching a couple of self-styled objectivists doing pop psychology.

I say let's Vote for SAM™ on it!

 

[cheeseboy]

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.

no need to be sorry, it's a good point, hadn't though of it like that

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.

gotcha. Although I guess there is a catch 22 if the their reasoning can never get the other point. In which case, I guess the point is just to go and have a cuppa

 

[hg]

Dont stop them! I was enjoying that. There's nothing quite so edifying as watching a couple of self-styled objectivists doing pop psychology.

I think it is more a case of trying to do it rather than doing it. Without more input from the "subjectivist" side there is little to work with on the topic of people claiming all amplifiers sound the same. Unfortunately things have probably evolved to the point where the defenses are now up and "how we see it" is unlikely to be forthcoming.

 

[hg]

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.

gotcha. Although I guess there is a catch 22 if the their reasoning can never get the other point. In which case, I guess the point is just to go and have a cuppa

Not sure what was got but a missionary "objectivist" is normally trying to convert "subjectivists" to the path of truth and light. The objective is to get the "subjectivist" to admit publicly that they have converted. I have never seen it happen on the internet although a few do seem to have quietly converted in the background.

Why assume a "subjectivists" reasoning can never get the other point? To determine this you would need to understand what is supporting the "subjectivists" point and whether it can be reduced. Speaking for myself this is what I can rarely work out and what I would like to know.

 

[matt49]

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).

I don't know about "much more qualified", but I do have some knowledge of psychology, in particular its history. And I know enough to know how little I know.

For most people (and that includes most hi-fi “objectivists”), the scientific worldview is functionally not much different from a religion. It’s a belief-system whose deepest foundations elude justification.

What is science? A set of empirically verifiable claims about the world which cohere with one another? That doesn’t help much, since the claim that empirical verifiability must take precedence is itself not empirically verifiable, and in any case the science that we currently have isn’t fully self-coherent.

The best that most of us can do is give a pragmatic shrug of the shoulders and say “Look, it just works! Jet planes fly (most of the time), bridges don’t (often) collapse, the internet works (despite Kim Kardashian)!” To do anything else is to overreach one’s knowledge and end up behaving nearly as irrationally as people of faith.

So when I see the "subjectivists" taking a hammering from the "objectivists", I do sometimes want to pitch in on the "subjectivist" side.

Here's an example of "objectivist" irrationality:

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.

Aside from the logical error (never say never!), and the question what data set's being used, and the problem of defining "audiophile", I'd just say one thing: Jim Lesurf.

And for the avoidance of doubt: I happen to think that evolution by natural selection is a correct description of how life functions, I don’t subscribe to a belief in fancy digital cables, I have no religious beliefs (excepting my belief in science), and I’d like nothing more than for someone to demonstrate unambiguously that scientific realism is right. It’d save a lot of philosophical fannying about.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Are you saying that SET amplifiers are not designed competently?

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.

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.

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.

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

 

[hg]

The best that most of us can do is give a pragmatic shrug of the shoulders and say “Look, it just works! Jet planes fly (most of the time), bridges don’t (often) collapse, the internet works (despite Kim Kardashian)!” To do anything else is to overreach one’s knowledge and end up behaving nearly as irrationally as people of faith.

This may be a common attitude among many today and most that post to this forum but once upon a time people were interested in how things worked particularly if it was a hobby interest like home audio. You only have to go back to the 1970s to find when this formed a significant part of the home audio popular press. In such an environment audiophile beliefs have little chance of gaining traction and indeed they only entered the home audio mainstream at the expense of an interest in how things worked.

So when I see the "subjectivists" taking a hammering from the "objectivists", I do sometimes want to pitch in on the "subjectivist" side.

Here's an example of "objectivist" irrationality:

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.

What is irrational about it? A rational person cannot hold audiophile beliefs and scientific beliefs when they are in conflict and so has to choose. Consequently there are no technically literate audiophiles given the role scientific thought plays in technical literacy.

Aside from the logical error (never say never!), and the question what data set's being used, and the problem of defining "audiophile", I'd just say one thing: Jim Lesurf.

Can you give an example of an audiophile belief that Jim Lesurf holds? I am not aware of any which only goes to make my point.

 

[Anderson]

Vlad you crack me up, you almost had me there too!

 

[Vladimir]

But what is empirical Matt? What is shrug? Can we know? What is word? Are we there yet?

You often imply you knowing something (pretty basic things, mind you) means others somehow inherently do not know this. You somehow got advanced level of insight of things others have not. Get over yourself and have a normal argument like the rest of us here to pass time.

But what is time?

 

[Vladimir]

Vlad you crack me up, you almost had me there too!

Heidegger und crack sind eine schlechte kombination.

 

[fr0g]

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

Didn't he offer a free set of speakers to anyone who could. Seems like he is pretty certain. Seems like he has reason on his side to me.

And probably regurgitating what has been said...it's his forum. His rules.

In one way I agree with you, I find WHF more accomodating generally than the Avi forum for a similar reason, i.e. I like to hear (and counter) varying views, however bonkers, preferably without censorship.

However, I tend to agree with Alan for the most part. He's a smart man. And no, he has never said "All amplifiers sound the same" as far as I am aware. His statement is extremely careful and specific.

 

[matt49]

What is irrational about it? A rational person cannot hold audiophile beliefs and scientific beliefs when they are in conflict and so has to choose. Consequently there are no technically literate audiophiles given the role scientific thought plays in technical literacy.

What's irrational about it is that the argument only works if you define "audiophile" as anti-scientific, and if you do that the argument's circular.

Can you give an example of an audiophile belief that Jim Lesurf holds? I am not aware of any which only goes to make my point.

He prefers low-powered, hot-running class A amps to other solid-state amps.

In his article in March HFN he seems to argue that two HDMI cables that meet the spec may perform noticeably differently.

You often imply you knowing something (pretty basic things, mind you) means others somehow inherently do not know this. You somehow got advanced level of insight of things others have not. Get over yourself and have a normal argument like the rest of us here to pass time.

The normal arguments are dull. Isn't that why you come out with all your weird sh*t?

Generally the way people get an advanced level of insight is education, no?

 

[Vladimir]

The OP obviosly went to a manufacturer's forum to look for other Harbeth owners and talk up hi-fi. There his audiophile beliefs were challenged and his "I'm the customer damn it!" protests were gagged. It happened more than once on HUG (ironic choice of acronym possibly?).

When you visit a manufacturer's forum you expect a country club atmosphere and plasticky welcome smiles from the staff who took your money. Doesn't happen though. You get frequently, although intermittently, to enjoy Alan on his soapbox busting audiophile myths, or sitting in his lap to hear some good old 'back in the Quad days' bedtime stories.

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. ;-)

I have mistaken you for an audiophool, but it's obvious to me now that you're a normal chap with good head on your shoulders. I apologize for my comment previosly. I'm sure you've read few 'Stereophile subscribers' being challenged when joining HUG, if you know what I mean. *wink*

I also don't really appreciate HUG's 'invisible mod' policing and the stiff Alan's world view/boot discourse prevailing there. I've taken this as somewhat typical of manufacturer forums in general and like Frog said, I prefer open forums like this one.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

Didn't he offer a free set of speakers to anyone who could. Seems like he is pretty certain. Seems like he has reason on his side to me.

And probably regurgitating what has been said...it's his forum. His rules.

In one way I agree with you, I find WHF more accomodating generally than the Avi forum for a similar reason, i.e. I like to hear (and counter) varying views, however bonkers, preferably without censorship.

However, I tend to agree with Alan for the most part. He's a smart man. And no, he has never said "All amplifiers sound the same" as far as I am aware. His statement is extremely careful and specific.

" His statement is extremely careful and specific."

Then I must have either missed it or missed the nuance. - perhaps you could enlighten me as to his exact and specific meaning? - And perhaps explain why you think he set up this listening test the way he did in support of this.

 

[fr0g]

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

Didn't he offer a free set of speakers to anyone who could. Seems like he is pretty certain. Seems like he has reason on his side to me.

And probably regurgitating what has been said...it's his forum. His rules.

In one way I agree with you, I find WHF more accomodating generally than the Avi forum for a similar reason, i.e. I like to hear (and counter) varying views, however bonkers, preferably without censorship.

However, I tend to agree with Alan for the most part. He's a smart man. And no, he has never said "All amplifiers sound the same" as far as I am aware. His statement is extremely careful and specific.

" His statement is extremely careful and specific."

Then I must have either missed it or missed the nuance. - perhaps you could enlighten me as to his exact and specific meaning? - And perhaps explain why you think he set up this listening test the way he did in support of this.

The amps must be competently designed, operating under no stress (driven to clipping) and volume matched.

So a 1980s Amstrad amp wouldn't suffice. A hastily slung together £50 amp would probably not suffice.

Take any current amp from a major manufacturer for example. Take any silly price exotica. Now level match them so that the maximum volume is that of the weakest of the two. You will struggle to hear any difference.

I can agree with that.

I personally think my budget Yamaha AV receiver sounds identical driving my Dali Ikon 6 to when I had a Lyngdorf amp (£1500) driving them. The Lyngdorf would drive them harder and louder, but at sensible volume, they are indistinguishable imo.

At even lower volume, my 15 wpc Bantam t-amp also sounds identical to the Lyngdorf. I did this test a few years ago and I seriously could not tell them apart.

Which would I prefer driving them? The Lyngdorf. It pumped out 200 WPC at 8 ohms and almost double at 4. I listen loud. It let me do that with ease. But at lower volumes...there was no advantage whatsoever.

 

[Vladimir]

At $50 the little SMSL SA50 is just wonderfull.

 

[matt49]

In the interests of doing things properly, I’ve just ordered an “audiophile” (objectivists, note the quotation marks!) switchbox that allows you to switch almost instantaneously between two amps into a single pair of speakers.

I did toy with the idea of making one myself from a 4-gang 2-way light switch, but the idea of putting my 500W power amp through a light switch didn’t appeal.

Apparently this box can cope with 1600WPC. Hergestellt in Deutschland.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

Didn't he offer a free set of speakers to anyone who could. Seems like he is pretty certain. Seems like he has reason on his side to me.

And probably regurgitating what has been said...it's his forum. His rules.

In one way I agree with you, I find WHF more accomodating generally than the Avi forum for a similar reason, i.e. I like to hear (and counter) varying views, however bonkers, preferably without censorship.

However, I tend to agree with Alan for the most part. He's a smart man. And no, he has never said "All amplifiers sound the same" as far as I am aware. His statement is extremely careful and specific.

" His statement is extremely careful and specific."

Then I must have either missed it or missed the nuance. - perhaps you could enlighten me as to his exact and specific meaning? - And perhaps explain why you think he set up this listening test the way he did in support of this.

The amps must be competently designed, operating under no stress (driven to clipping) and volume matched.

So a 1980s Amstrad amp wouldn't suffice. A hastily slung together £50 amp would probably not suffice.

Take any current amp from a major manufacturer for example. Take any silly price exotica. Now level match them so that the maximum volume is that of the weakest of the two. You will struggle to hear any difference.

I can agree with that.

I personally think my budget Yamaha AV receiver sounds identical driving my Dali Ikon 6 to when I had a Lyngdorf amp (£1500) driving them. The Lyngdorf would drive them harder and louder, but at sensible volume, they are indistinguishable imo.

At even lower volume, my 15 wpc Bantam t-amp also sounds identical to the Lyngdorf. I did this test a few years ago and I seriously could not tell them apart.

Which would I prefer driving them? The Lyngdorf. It pumped out 200 WPC at 8 ohms and almost double at 4. I listen loud. It let me do that with ease. But at lower volumes...there was no advantage whatsoever.

My experience is very different. I do not listen loud, I listen at moderate levels but I listen for long periods of time and have done for many years.

My list of Amps is as follows:

Musical Fidelity A1

Alchemist Kraken

Audiolab 8000C + 8000P

Unison Research Preludio

Unison Research S8

Devialet 200

All these Amps have their own way of presenting music and they absolutely sound different to each other.

I recently bought the Devialet 200, but could not let go of the Unison Research S8, because it presents (ie sounds) different to the Devialet, and in a way I don't want to be without, using the same Focal Electra 1008Be speakers in the same room.

My ears tell me there is a difference. - And yes, I know one is a Valve Amp and the other isn't and the Devialet is almost 10X more powerful than the S8. - But at the same listening levels (nowhere near loud enough to get the S8 to clip) they are very different.

I have heard many Amps over the years and they all do things differently. The MF and Alchemist were warm and very easy to listen to for long periods of time, the Alchemist was better than the A1 as it had a very tuneful bass and great midrange - The Audiolabs were clean sounding and precise. These Amps were used with the same Monitor Audio speakers and at the same listening volume in the same room using the same source.

There were very clear differences between them. - So what is really going on here?

 

[fr0g]

Aside from starting to find your comments personally offensive and of the same arrogant nature as Alan Shaw's, I am interested in how you cannot think Alan shaw is saying that all Amplifiers sound the same - even for identical sound levels, when he has one Amplifier valued at £69 and another apparently German made expensive Amplifier demonstrating his speakers at a show and defying anyone to tell the difference....

Didn't he offer a free set of speakers to anyone who could. Seems like he is pretty certain. Seems like he has reason on his side to me.

And probably regurgitating what has been said...it's his forum. His rules.

In one way I agree with you, I find WHF more accomodating generally than the Avi forum for a similar reason, i.e. I like to hear (and counter) varying views, however bonkers, preferably without censorship.

However, I tend to agree with Alan for the most part. He's a smart man. And no, he has never said "All amplifiers sound the same" as far as I am aware. His statement is extremely careful and specific.

" His statement is extremely careful and specific."

Then I must have either missed it or missed the nuance. - perhaps you could enlighten me as to his exact and specific meaning? - And perhaps explain why you think he set up this listening test the way he did in support of this.

The amps must be competently designed, operating under no stress (driven to clipping) and volume matched.

So a 1980s Amstrad amp wouldn't suffice. A hastily slung together £50 amp would probably not suffice.

Take any current amp from a major manufacturer for example. Take any silly price exotica. Now level match them so that the maximum volume is that of the weakest of the two. You will struggle to hear any difference.

I can agree with that.

I personally think my budget Yamaha AV receiver sounds identical driving my Dali Ikon 6 to when I had a Lyngdorf amp (£1500) driving them. The Lyngdorf would drive them harder and louder, but at sensible volume, they are indistinguishable imo.

At even lower volume, my 15 wpc Bantam t-amp also sounds identical to the Lyngdorf. I did this test a few years ago and I seriously could not tell them apart.

Which would I prefer driving them? The Lyngdorf. It pumped out 200 WPC at 8 ohms and almost double at 4. I listen loud. It let me do that with ease. But at lower volumes...there was no advantage whatsoever.

My experience is very different. I do not listen loud, I listen at moderate levels but I listen for long periods of time and have done for many years.

My list of Amps is as follows:

Musical Fidelity A1

Alchemist Kraken

Audiolab 8000C + 8000P

Unison Research Preludio

Unison Research S8

Devialet 200

All these Amps have their own way of presenting music and they absolutely sound different to each other.

I recently bought the Devialet 200, but could not let go of the Unison Research S8, because it presents (ie sounds) different to the Devialet, and in a way I don't want to be without, using the same Focal Electra 1008Be speakers in the same room.

My ears tell me there is a difference. - And yes, I know one is a Valve Amp and the other isn't and the Devialet is almost 10X more powerful than the S8. - But at the same listening levels (nowhere near loud enough to get the S8 to clip) they are very different.

I have heard many Amps over the years and they all do things differently. The MF and Alchemist were warm and very easy to listen to for long periods of time, the Alchemist was better than the A1 as it had a very tuneful bass and great midrange - The Audiolabs were clean sounding and precise. These Amps were used with the same Monitor Audio speakers and at the same listening volume in the same room using the same source.

There were very clear differences between them. - So what is really going on here?

What did you use to level match them to the maximum level of the weakest?

 

[lindsayt]

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..."

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.

Do you think that THD+N measurements into an 8 ohm resistor for a steady sine wave input of power levels between 0.1 watts and just below clipping, plus a frequency response graph at 2.83 volts output into an 8 ohm resistor, plus the output impedance tell you all you need to know about how an amplifier will sound?

 

[Om]

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..."

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.

Do you think that THD+N measurements into an 8 ohm resistor for a steady sine wave input of power levels between 0.1 watts and just below clipping, plus a frequency response graph at 2.83 volts output into an 8 ohm resistor, plus the output impedance tell you all you need to know about how an amplifier will sound?

Of course. Why not?

After all how things "sound" or "taste" or "smell" are dependent on unreliable human sensory organs as the Archbishop of Objectivity will remind you. The only way to compare sounds objectively is to measure volatges and frequencies. Just as the only objective way of choosing a wine is to look at the chemical analysis of tanins and other compounds in it.

Only problem is and its really frustrating that the voltmeter and the oscilloscope cannot "listen" on one's behalf. So, sadly, one has to in order to LISTEN to and ENJOY the music (hopefully that is the objective) - depend on his/her subjective ears corrupted by expectation bias and psycho-accoustics playing tricks on her subjective mind which in turn is corrupted by immeasurable irrational elements like mood, emotion etc !!!!!!

Can anything be sadder than that?

PS - Of course - one can, instead of listening to the music, have the voltmeter and the oscilloscope connected to theamplifier and speaker terminals. Watch the graphs and readings and enjoy the pure rational objective bliss!

PPS - And while at that, wear the load-balancing resistors around one's neck. will be a new fashion statement.

 

[Om]

Engineers who create the amps we buy, do not use listening to design them. They use pure math and physics, augmenting their senses completely with measuring instruments. They design the best performing circuits, with best possible components, limited by talent and budget. How things sound are only decided later on in the marketing process or before engineering as product planning.

Precisely so!

"before engineering as product planning" - and what goes into product planning?

 

[Vladimir]

Engineers who create the amps we buy, do not use listening to design them. They use pure math and physics, augmenting their senses completely with measuring instruments. They design the best performing circuits, with best possible components, limited by talent and budget. How things sound are only decided later on in the marketing process or before engineering as product planning.

Example: EE makes a perfectly good affordable 60Wpc integrated amplifier. Marketing department says make it louder and punchier so it sells better with the busy lifestyle chaps. The EE makes the inputs more sensitive and the amp screams already at 9 o'clock on the volume dial. Reviewers write up some nice blurb how exciting the amp is. Product sells well.

You can buy the blurb or you can read the specs and understand that this amp is not 'punching above it's price range' and it is not a 'giant killer' and such. It simply has sensitive inputs, so if your speakers benefit from a 120Wpc amp, you don't buy the shouty 60Wpc one. You buy the calm 120Wpc one.

 

[Vladimir]

Engineers who create the amps we buy, do not use listening to design them. They use pure math and physics, augmenting their senses completely with measuring instruments. They design the best performing circuits, with best possible components, limited by talent and budget. How things sound are only decided later on in the marketing process or before engineering as product planning.

Example: EE makes a perfectly good affordable 60Wpc integrated amplifier. Marketing department says make it louder and punchier so it sells better with the busy lifestyle chaps. The EE makes the inputs more sensitive and the amp screams already at 9 o'clock on the volume dial. Reviewers write up some nice blurb how exciting the amp is. Product sells well.

You can buy the blurb or you can read the specs and understand that this amp is not 'punching above it's price range' and it is not a 'giant killer' and such. It simply has sensitive inputs, so if your speakers benefit from a 120Wpc amp, you don't buy the shouty 60Wpc one. You buy the calm 120Wpc one.

Precisely so!

"before engineering as product planning" - and what goes into product planning?

Comment edited.

 

[tonky]

I would like to think that anybody who is remotely concerned about enjoying music and (reasonably?) accurate hi fidelity reproduction of it would not be fooled by the "input sensitivity ".

A loud volume is a loud volume whether the volume control is at 9 oclock or 3.30 in the afternoon for the same similar spec amp. Anyone who is misled by this isn't as concerned with good fidelity music reproduction as we are . I believe that the majority contributing to this forum are not too bothered about this argument. I use a digital remote to control the volume ( alot probably do ) . Input sensitivity does not concern me as I just set a volume level - using my ears- that makes me comfortable.

tonky