Does anyone know of this challenge? - Page 4

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<rHSic.32839$_L6.1818930@attbi_s53>...

> I recall reading a review in Absolute Sound where they compared a bunch of
> amps ranging from $2k (Rotel) to about $6K - and their only comment was that
> at normal listening levels, any of the amps would be easy to live with - and
> the only differences were heard at a high level of drive.

Well I recall reading many, many reviews in which amps are compared
according to soundstage, musicality, bass response, speed, openness,
and many other characteristics, none of which can be corrected by
equalization or which appear only at the power extremes. If such
qualities are in fact comparable then they should be plainly obvious
when both amps are driving the same speakers well within their
performance specs. If they're not obvious, it means the reviews are
overblown.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/25/04 10:03 PM, in article aWSsc.25971$af3.1355739@attbi_s51, "Jacob
Kramer" <jak163@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<rHSic.32839$_L6.1818930@attbi_s53>...
>
>> I recall reading a review in Absolute Sound where they compared a bunch of
>> amps ranging from $2k (Rotel) to about $6K - and their only comment was that
>> at normal listening levels, any of the amps would be easy to live with - and
>> the only differences were heard at a high level of drive.
>
> Well I recall reading many, many reviews in which amps are compared
> according to soundstage, musicality, bass response, speed, openness,
> and many other characteristics, none of which can be corrected by
> equalization or which appear only at the power extremes. If such
> qualities are in fact comparable then they should be plainly obvious
> when both amps are driving the same speakers well within their
> performance specs. If they're not obvious, it means the reviews are
> overblown.
>

The DID compare all of that - but went on to talk about how the differences
were only heard at high levels and that listening to the "laggard" amp -
they did comment that it would be totally acceptable at normal volumes.

I figure that a bright chap may be able to measure the stereo image of
speakers being driven by different amps - since depending upon source - like
Vinyl, CD and MP3 being played through speakers - I have noticed differences
in the stereo imaging - I figure that it could be measurable if someone
cared to do so.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"This more difficult than it sounds, as a "stereo image" is a mental
construct. As the late Richard Heyser wrote 20 years ago, the perception
of an "image" depends on many parameters simultaneously."

And as blind testing has clearly demonstrated well enough now by which to
constitute a benchmark, many oft mention atributes of sound so too are
composed of such elements of perception. Many originating in the brain
alone.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/31/04 11:54 AM, in article c9fkf8012p1@news1.newsguy.com,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> "This more difficult than it sounds, as a "stereo image" is a mental
> construct. As the late Richard Heyser wrote 20 years ago, the perception
> of an "image" depends on many parameters simultaneously."
>
> And as blind testing has clearly demonstrated well enough now by which to
> constitute a benchmark, many oft mention atributes of sound so too are
> composed of such elements of perception. Many originating in the brain
> alone.

In this case - the information that gets to the brain might be something one
could measure.

Have you ever perceived a stereo image? I know many on this group like to
declare things to be figments of imagination - but the basic stereo imaging?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:



>
>On 5/31/04 2:48 PM, in article c9fum301cpa@news1.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> IME, staging and imaging is a function of uniform frequency response,
>> controlled directivity AND system deployment. While it is possible to get a
>> realistic location of images with errors in the frequency response it comes
>> wih
>> other errors not commonly ackowledged such as improper image size,
>> front-to-back problems, poor ambience distribution (and tonality) a and
>poor
>> sense of envelopment.
>
>SO, would you say then, that while imperfect, imaging does happen? The
>sense that the sound is not coming from the speakers is a nice one for me.
>
>And, of course, it isn't "real" as it is a recording.

Of course it happens. But don't take that to mean that power amplifiers or
wires have "imaging" characteristics.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/1/04 8:13 PM, in article c9j62n013r0@news2.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> On 5/31/04 2:48 PM, in article c9fum301cpa@news1.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>> <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IME, staging and imaging is a function of uniform frequency response,
>>> controlled directivity AND system deployment. While it is possible to get a
>>> realistic location of images with errors in the frequency response it comes
>>> wih
>>> other errors not commonly ackowledged such as improper image size,
>>> front-to-back problems, poor ambience distribution (and tonality) a and
>> poor
>>> sense of envelopment.
>>
>> SO, would you say then, that while imperfect, imaging does happen? The
>> sense that the sound is not coming from the speakers is a nice one for me.
>>
>> And, of course, it isn't "real" as it is a recording.
>
> Of course it happens. But don't take that to mean that power amplifiers or
> wires have "imaging" characteristics.

Okay, I think then we agree. I have found that MP3's image less well than
CD's or other uncompressed media.