This I believe -

[Paul R]

Oh come on guys. Did I land in the middle of a college party where everyone knows everyone and I am the traget of all clueless-new-guy jokes?

 

No - you are just expressing an opinion that is often a "hot topic" here, and you appear to have worded your post in a way to be a bit inflammatory. I say appear, because you may not have meant it that way at all. Nobody knows until you tell us.

 

There have been several people on the system, using various names, whose sole purpose has been to aggravate the hell out of people and gain attention. (shrug) One easy way to avoid that is to introduce yourself and let people know who you really are and what you do. Cut folks a little slack though, a lot of people are a trifle cautious is all.

 

Most times posts are not meant with hostile or defensive intentions, though they can sure seem that way.

 

Yours,

-Paul

[trithio]

He's a former member who was banned. I have to say in my own estimation that you write a lot better than he did, and also mostly lack the self-aggrandizing posturing.

 

Oh ok. Good to at least have a clue about the funny CA folklore. Also good to hear that people were not making fun of my beliefs. Especially since I do consider that to be basic common knowledge.

 

Thanks for helping Jud and sorry if I was too snappy earlier in the bits thread.

[Jud]

Oh ok. Good to at least have a clue about the funny CA folklore. Also good to hear that people were not making fun of my beliefs. Especially since I do consider that to be basic common knowledge.

 

Thanks for helping Jud and sorry if I was too snappy earlier in the bits thread.

 

One thing prot *never* did was say he was remotely sorry about *any*thing, so I think that's conclusive proof if any more was needed.

[alfe]

Oh ok. Good to at least have a clue about the funny CA folklore. Also good to hear that people were not making fun of my beliefs. Especially since I do consider that to be basic common knowledge.

 

Thanks for helping Jud and sorry if I was too snappy earlier in the bits thread.

 

This is better, welcome Trithio to CA:)

Your beliefs are respected and we are happy to have a new member in the objectivist team and don't be surprised when Alex will be back from hospital to be called deaf

[Melvin]

This I believe - loudspeakers have the greatest impact on sound quality .. start there.

[trithio]

No - you are just expressing an opinion that is often a "hot topic" here, and you appear to have worded your post in a way to be a bit inflammatory. I say appear, because you may not have meant it that way at all. Nobody knows until you tell us.

 

Not sure what was inflamatory there. As mentioned I do consider those things to be pretty common knowledge.

 

I am just another joe I guess. Coming from EU, doing some project management in the IT domain. And lately trying to work on my audio hobby. Nothing fancy, I'm not the obsesed kind who pays tens of thousands for hobbies. I came here because of the caps recipes and some posts by archimago and mitchko. But I found lots of cable and bits esoteria which is surely not what I expected. Oh well we will see.

Hope that is enough as intro.

[audiventory]

This I believe - loudspeakers have the greatest impact on sound quality .. start there.

 

Almost agree with Melvin. Speakers are second after listening room.

 

Exists such rooms what any speaker will powerless Rooms with big glass surfaces, as example.

[esldude]

I believe that a high percentage of what people report as differences in sound from questionable upgrades is related to expectation bias and hearing differences due to sleep, diet and other environmental changes that affect the human auditory system.

 

When making minor changes to a system, I believe no human has the auditory memory to truly remember exactly what their system sounded like 1 day ago never mind 6 months ago, especially with how environmental changes have such an affect on human hearing. If I'm going to compare how something sounds I need to be able to switch back and forth in less than a minute.

 

I hear you on this. What isn't hard to remember is how you felt emotionally and otherwise some time back. When I had XYZ I was very happy with my music listening. I switched to ABC and was not so happy. Switched to DEF and was happier than ever. Of course the reasons for the happiness could be any number of things including nothing to do with the switch. But you remember how you felt about it then. Unless you are very careful it is very hard to argue with such gut level feelings about why something was made better or worse. With the strength of those feelings it doesn't take much to latch onto an incorrect or even irrelevant reason which can then be believed very strongly.

[elcorso]

This is better, welcome Trithio to CA:)

Your beliefs are respected and we are happy to have a new member in the objectivist team and don't be surprised when Alex will be back from hospital to be called deaf

 

I didn't know you were a team, I'm sorry... This I believe you were independent deaf.

 

Roch

[trithio]

Almost agree with Melvin. Speakers are second after listening room.

 

That is an interesting question. I would go with the speakers. The first thing I listen for is that hard to pinpoint quality called tone. Or sound color if you wish. For example if a speaker has one of those awful metallic sounding tweeters it is off for me. No room treatments for that.

[alfe]

I didn't know you were a team, I'm sorry... This I believe you were independent deaf.

 

Roch

 

+1

[gmgraves]

Wondered - when you say "topology," do you mean amplifier class (such as A, B, A/B, D) or something more specific (such as Circlotron or single-ended triode)?

 

In electronics, topology generally refers to the circuit layout; I.E. the plan followed to build the circuit. For instance, take two amplifier schematics for two different amplifiers and look at them side by side. if you ignore the parts values, tubes or transistors used, and perhaps some small details, if the overall circuit looks similar, then the two amps are said to use the same circuit topology. This is common and some topologies are so ubiquitous, popular and famous that they even have names. For instance, during the early days of hi-fi, many companies built what was commonly referred to as a "Williamson" amplifier. Didn't matter whether it came from Heathkit, H. H. Scott, Quad, or Marantz it was actually sold as a Williamson amplifier. If you looked at the schematics, they were so similar as to require a real expert to tell which was which. That was the amp's circuit topology. When solid state came along, topologies diverged somewhat more than with tubes because there were suddenly more ways to do it. There were FET output stages vs bipolar transistor, complementary output stages where one output device is a "P" device, and the other in an "N" device. Then there were semi-complementary systems where the output stages were either all "P" (rare after Silicon took over from germanium) or all "N" (usual) and the driver transistors where complementary. Some were all bipolar, some are all FET, and some have FET output stages while all earlier stages are bipolar. Many cheaper designs are all IC, some had interstage transformers (early MacIntosh SS) etc.

 

Truth was saying (I believe) that if two amps used the same topologies, they will sound the same. I disagree. I think that there is more to an amplifier than the way the parts are connected together. Even in tube days, details made (make) the difference. Just the output transformers alone, for instance, could make a big difference between two Williamson amps and a Quad and a Leak Williamson amp never sounded alike. Two otherwise identical circuits where one coupled stages using aluminum electrolytic capacitors, for instance, while the other used tantalum electrolytics is going to sound totally different. IOW, topology is only part of the story.

[Jud]

George, that's nice, but I was asking what *trithio* meant, if he wants to say. If not, that's fine too.

[senorx]

This I believe - The quality of the original recording/remastering is much more important than the sample rate or format.

 

+1+

[senorx]

I believe audiophiles are better qualified than audiologists and neuroscientists to say what is understood about the physiology of hearing, that they are better qualified than engineers to understand the importance of wires, cables and electronics, and are more able than physicists to make new scientific discoveries about the fundamental nature of the universe from the comfort of their own listening chairs.

 

Disagree totally.

[senorx]

"The Ichthus / Fish was chosen as an early secret Symbol indicating that the person who knew the meaning of the Ichthus was a Christian and safe to associate with. Being a Christian was extremely dangerous for hundreds of years following the life of Jesus due to the persecutions of the pagan Roman Emperors."

 

Paul I know you meet no harm, ( I am assuming you are very progressive with a high standard of tolerances ) but I do want to remind you that unlike audio that indeed evolves; what the early Christians believed over 2000 years ago has not evolved, all else being equal, it is as life changing then as it is now. Shalom!

 

Non-sequitur much?

[senorx]

These things I believe:

 

One person's "smooth" is another person's "veiled"

One person's "clarity" is another person's "bright"

One person's "transparency" is another person's "harsh"

One person's "value for money" is another person's "extravagance"

One person's "night and day difference" is another person's "sorry - did you change something?"

One person's "audio nirvana" is another person's "work in progress"

 

Of course my perceptions on all of the above are always the "right" ones

 

+1

[esldude]

From wgscott:

I believe audiophiles are better qualified than audiologists and neuroscientists to say what is understood about the physiology of hearing, that they are better qualified than engineers to understand the importance of wires, cables and electronics, and are more able than physicists to make new scientific discoveries about the fundamental nature of the universe from the comfort of their own listening chairs.

 

Disagree totally.

 

You look pretty new here. Welcome to CA.

 

wgscott's post was sarcasm if you were familiar with his views on things. So you actually may agree with wgscott.

[senorx]

From wgscott:

I believe audiophiles are better qualified than audiologists and neuroscientists to say what is understood about the physiology of hearing, that they are better qualified than engineers to understand the importance of wires, cables and electronics, and are more able than physicists to make new scientific discoveries about the fundamental nature of the universe from the comfort of their own listening chairs.

 

 

 

You look pretty new here. Welcome to CA.

 

wgscott's post was sarcasm if you were familiar with his views on things. So you actually may agree with wgscott.

 

Sorry. Missed that completely.

[trithio]

Wondered - when you say "topology," do you mean amplifier class (such as A, B, A/B, D) or something more specific (such as Circlotron or single-ended triode)?

 

Sorry for missing another one. Yes I meant class as in a, b, d and so on. And of course tube and solidstate are not the same 'class'.

Not sure how I could have said that better but it is hopefully clear what I meant. For example a $500 class A ss amp and a $5000 class A ss amp will sound the same if they measure the same.

[YashN]

Prot we missed you:)

 

hahaha!!!!

[InfernoSTi]

For example a $500 class A ss amp and a $5000 class A ss amp will sound the same if they measure the same.

 

I respect your opinion but have a couple of examples where they might not sound the same.

 

Example 1 is if one Class A SS amp is a 5 watt amp and the other Class A SS amp is a 200 watt amp. They each might sound different and the cost is associated with the extra power and what that brings yet are both the same typology.

 

Example 2 is one Class A SS amp that switches to A/B at 5 watts and has a maximum of 100 watts and the other Class A SS amp that switches to A/B at 60 watts and has a maximum of 100 watts. They might sound different and again the cost is due to how long they stay in A vs. A/B yet they are the same typology.

 

Example 3 is one Class A SS amp uses a crude power supply with minimal filtering and little total capacitance and the other Class A SS amp uses a sophisticated power supply with state of the art filtering and a large total capacitance. They might sound different and the extra cost is due to the better power supply yet they are the same typology.

 

Example 4 is two Class A SS amps, one 5 watts and the other 200 watts, that sound the same with high efficiency, easy load speakers (say 95 dB/8 ohm speakers) yet they sound different with low efficiency, hard load speakers (say 86 dB/2 ohm speakers) yet they are the same typology.

 

I suspect these factors (total watts, when Class A switches to Class A/B, power supply, and speaker interaction with the amp) are all added together is some way that makes a significant difference. I wouldn't want to use a First Watt F2 amp when I needed a Pass Labs XA-160.5 amp, even if they are both Class A amps by the same designer.

 

I believe that there is a lot more to amp design than simply the selection of typology.

 

John

[esldude]

I respect your opinion but have a couple of examples where they might not sound the same.

 

Example 1 is if one Class A SS amp is a 5 watt amp and the other Class A SS amp is a 200 watt amp. They each might sound different and the cost is associated with the extra power and what that brings yet are both the same typology.

 

Example 2 is one Class A SS amp that switches to A/B at 5 watts and has a maximum of 100 watts and the other Class A SS amp that switches to A/B at 60 watts and has a maximum of 100 watts. They might sound different and again the cost is due to how long they stay in A vs. A/B yet they are the same typology.

 

Example 3 is one Class A SS amp uses a crude power supply with minimal filtering and little total capacitance and the other Class A SS amp uses a sophisticated power supply with state of the art filtering and a large total capacitance. They might sound different and the extra cost is due to the better power supply yet they are the same typology.

 

Example 4 is two Class A SS amps, one 5 watts and the other 200 watts, that sound the same with high efficiency, easy load speakers (say 95 dB/8 ohm speakers) yet they sound different with low efficiency, hard load speakers (say 86 dB/2 ohm speakers) yet they are the same typology.

 

I suspect these factors (total watts, when Class A switches to Class A/B, power supply, and speaker interaction with the amp) are all added together is some way that makes a significant difference. I wouldn't want to use a First Watt F2 amp when I needed a Pass Labs XA-160.5 amp, even if they are both Class A amps by the same designer.

 

I believe that there is a lot more to amp design than simply the selection of typology.

 

John

 

Strange post John. Trithio can speak for himself of course. But I do believe power is one of those measurements. I doubt he intended the idea that any 5 watt amp will sound the same as a 200 watt amp on a load that needs the extra power.

[gmgraves]

George, that's nice, but I was asking what *trithio* meant, if he wants to say. If not, that's fine too.

 

 

IOW, butt out. First forum I've ever been on where people's public posts are NOT necessarily public or for general comment.

[DigiPete]

They ignore science and knowledge when they argue sound and systems.

Worse: they act as if sound and systems follow unexplainable dogmas of an ancient religion.