Yet another bold claim...

[[ Jorge - you shouldn't have gone there with titian. He owns more LPs and CDs than most music stores ]]


So...certainly Titian loves music.

I have bought many records in Geneva,they have very good record-shops and we can even ear with headphones JaklingFloat (good service...)

Salut,Titian!

 

No, more like the number of records they actually listen to reguarly.

Owning a lot of software could simply mean you are constantly looking for a recording that sounds good (as is the case for a number of misguided hifi owners)

 

No Michael... it's a more important thing:

Overall negative feedback!

After thirty years of studying the subject, Tube Dude came up with an important conclusion:

In order to have a perfect null your amp MUST have overall negative feedback!

Overall negative feedback means that the output is always forced to be equal to the input!

Sim amps don't have overall negative feedback, therefore they can't be as accurate (although Simaudio claims that it is a very good thing).

Yet another bold claim...

 

BD, it's all very well to make that kind of theoretical claim but unless you've tested the Sim you can't possibly say how it will perform. You might be surprised

Also, it wasn't so long ago that I remember you were extolling the virtues of no overall negative feedback yourself

Michael.

 

Of course!!

But for example , the boy-friend of my daughter play cello in a symphonic orchestra and surprisingly ,he is not good in telling differences between amps...because I think he ear the music with the head and brains...and not only with the ears.

 

Michael,

Since I 've seen (heard) Tube Dude's null test everything have changed... for the (much) better.

It's not theoretical... it is the null test result.

 

I think thats a very good point. If accuracy is what you want, why do you care about the relatively small differences in amps when the speakers and rooms interaction there with distort the sound very amazingly hugely more?

BD, what you want to do is save up for an anechoic chamber and speakers with a flatter response (if they are anything like the NS10's they are not very flat) if you really believe accuracy is the key to your listening enjoyment.

Another point is what is wrong with a system that alters the music to sound subjectively nicer? You say a person who likes this is 'wrong' but you should realise nearly all recordings are altered by the engineer to sound subjectively 'nicer'. Not only that but by the microphones. Is the engineer/producer wrong for using a Neumann M150 or a vintage AKG C12 to record vocals rather than a Brüel & Kjær measurement microphone? I think not!

Therefore I conclude that the quest for accuracy in a playback system used purely for listening ENJOYMENT is not the only way to go, as you suggest.

For a playback system used as a 'tool' such as in a studio though.. thats another game, and very often another league.

 

Also, in an effort to understand why you believe accuracy so obviously makes a better sounding system I would like to bring up the point of cultural differences.

It has been my observation that people from different countries prefer a different sound in general. This is why people talk about ?American sounding? or ?British sounding? gear. Obviously people in different places have a slightly different ear for what they think sounds good. If you go to Singapore you would find that (and I?m just taking this from talking to people on a S?pore hi-fi forum) that about 60% of Singaporean audiophiles prefer valve amps. Are they wrong?

I would venture a guess that perhaps the ?Portuguese ear? prefers the accurate, nothing added or taken away kind of sound. I bet many in Singapore would think it sounds crap.

 

Well I guess the answer is that you would go for the better measuring amp and then look for components that work around it. Seems a mighty odd way of going about things I must say. Good luck in your quest for the perfectly accurate system.

When I am relaxing listening to the great music being produced by my transistor radio like system, I'll be thinking of you - slaving away in the measuring suite desperately looking for the holy grail.

 

BD,

do yourself a favour and buy a Tact RCS2.2x/S2150 combination. If you want accurate I have never heard better. There's no need for global feedback because the amp is designed properly in the first place, plus the preamp will ensure that the distortions introduced by the room are minimised.

You can play with it to your heart's content. It will represent a quantum leap rather than I small step in your persuit of accuracy.

And you won't need to null test it because you can't

 

Exactly, that's why I asked BD in the other thread to post a picture of his room, but of course he didn't.
Talking so fanatically of accuracy and then not having an acoustically treated room, which I therefore oresume, is quite a big contradiction.

 

Oh what a beautiful morning, the sun is hinning, the birds are a tweetering, and the anals are out to play, such joy

 

Down periscope?

 

I already have accuracy with Eclipse, Rotel, 1K's and my room.

If the room is so important (which it is) why the more accurate amp still sounds better than a lesser one in the same room?

(I don't have digital camera for a picture of it.)

You still didn't get it, do you Merlin? Less is more...

Robbo,

I'm trying to tell you from the very begining that an accurate amp will always sound better than one that it isn't. The very same is true for all the other components.

If you sing to a microphone you want to hear only your voice not a distorted version of it. Why is it so difficult to understand?

 

BD, I get it because I have had it. You really ought to try it you know - you owe it to yourself to experience real accuracy.

FWIW, the Tact applies an inverse filter to compensate for the distortions of your room. How does that differ from negative feedback compensating for the distortions of your amp?

 

I usually enjoy reading threads here, and learn a lot, both subjectively and objectively: dare I suggest that this thread now deserves its place in the Kindergarden.

deservedness may be judged either by subjective or objective criteria: perceived twaddle*rant, and the S/N -> 0 on any well constructed null hypothesis.

and its almost 3 months since the Kindergarden had a new plaything ...

 

Ditton,
to be accepted into the KG, it would need to be subjected to a null test first surely?

 

Not necessarily. "Sounds better" is a subjective thing. Accuracy isn't.

-- Ian

 

Ditton,

I haven't seen anybody being offensive here. It's quite interesting and would be more interesting for me if BD would open the conversation on accuracy up to other areas of hifi. I'm sure it's just a "lost in translation" thing.

If I wanted an accurate system, I would probably end up with a very high quality transport clock linked to a Tact RCS feeding large studio monitors such as ATC's or Dynaudio M3's. This would undoubtedly result in a more faithful presentation at the listening position than BD is currently using (I am talking from experience here, having owned most of the kit we are comparing).

It's perhaps worth thinking of the Tact in this instance as a truly global feedback circuit, measuring the signal at the input and at the listening position and making the latter match the former. Surely that will prove more accurate in the real world?

 

Ian,

Try to listen Elvis voice and start distort it, you may end up listening Jerry Lee Lewis. For someone who likes Jerry more than he likes Elvis it could be a good thing.