Yamahaholics

[Monkey Me]

Better is just Better

I agreed with you Guest.I heard the top Sony Es and Denon over many different speakers.The difference is not subtle nor is it a matter of preference.Sometimes better is just better in every way except look.I Hate Hate Hate the Denon look .So I would never consider owning it.For something that cost several thousands Sony was beaten badly and Sony is taking thousands of dollar out of people for it.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Very nicely put, whosoever you are, pity you dont have the time for membership as it would be an asset to have a person with your experience and POV here at the forums.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Very nicely put, whosoever you are, pity you dont have the time for membership as it would be an asset to have a person with your experience and POV here at the forums.

Yes, too bad we cannot discuss how different they sound within design limits under bias controls

 

[Yamahaluver]

Was that sarcasm, my limited brain is unable to see through the intricacies.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Was that sarcasm, my limited brain is unable to see through the intricacies.

yeah, something like that

 

[Yamahaluver]

But they do sound different, all designs have their own interaction with regards to damping, feedback, load etc. IMHO

 

[mtrycrafts]

But they do sound different, all designs have their own interaction with regards to damping, feedback, load etc. IMHO

Damping is nothing more than the ratio of the amps output impedance to the speaker impedance. A damping factor above 10 is sufficient.

You should really read the paper by Dr. David Rich and Peter Aczel.

"Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that MOdern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent", Rich, David and Aczel, Peter, 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.


David analized and listened, DBT, to many amps over the years.

Their finding just doesn't suppot your contentions. Doesn't mean 'all amps' sound the same. They are rare and one must try to design euphonics into it, not difficult.

 

[Yamahaluver]

I have read those papers you mention and I respectfully beg to differ, thats all.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have read those papers you mention and I respectfully beg to differ, thats all.

Oh, Ok. That is allowed. But evidence to support a position would be great.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Thank you for allowing me to differ, unfortunately like all these great doctorates, I am an illiterate person so my view is purely based on my naive an unscientific observations accrued over the years in Hi-Fi business and in general, owning various brands, levels of equipment. I have also come to the conclusion based on my experience with various customers and friends over the years, how their personal preference and biases changed when exposed to a brand X amp etc.

As I said, quite unscientific and nothing as close to these learned persons.

 

[Unregistered]

Damping factor of 10 adequate???? are kidding? Just because its printed on paper doesn't make it true.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Damping factor of 10 adequate???? are kidding? Just because its printed on paper doesn't make it true.

I try not to kid about important issues like this.
I suppose you have some authoritative citations since you seem to question my post on DF and 10 being sufficient?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:DPierce@world.std.com+and+damping+factor&hl=en&lr=&selm=2rvv75$tji@introl.introl.com&rnum=1

 

[Unregistered]

So you read this paper and convinced you that a damping factor of 10 is sufficient. I suggest you do more research on this matter, that is if you want to. I'm not going to cite anything, sorry.
Good day.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So you read this paper and convinced you that a damping factor of 10 is sufficient. I suggest you do more research on this matter, that is if you want to. I'm not going to cite anything, sorry.
Good day.

You are not going to cite anything??? Why is that??? Why do I need to do more research then??? You are offering nothing, no reason to do more research!!!
That article is a technical paper. Do you have such a paper to refute his findings, his formulas, his conclusion??? I didn't think you did or you would have posted it!! AND, you want me to do more research??? LOL

 

[Unregistered]

Because I don't have to convince you or anyboby else, that is why. If you choose to believe it then that is ok by me. You assume that I have to look up some article or paper to prove to you otherwise but what you don't know is that I don't need to. Some people do know what they are talking about son, don't forget that. I'm sure you post a lot around forums like this and therefore think you know what you are talking about and that is ok also. Just don't spread incorrect information to people that do not have the knowledge you think you have.

 

[Unregistered]

Although I am on the side of the 'objectivists' that favor science and DBTs, just because someone posts a link to paper, doesn't mean that that particular paper is accurate or even accepted by the authors peers.

Only when the majority, if not all, similar papers back up the same claims can we consider them to be definitive. After all, the idiots the believe in ball bearings and super-duper-cd mats write papers too.

 

[Yamahaluver]

While doing my doctorate, I knew that several of my colleagues doing their thesis based it on assumptions and some even went further to put radically different views and theories so as to dramatize and make their thesis more attractive, just because one gets a Ph.D. and posts a paper doesn't make his/her word absolute as you can see in the case of this so called paper telling us that a damping factor of 10 is adequate. I have two models of power amps from the same company, one older and one newer models, both with same power ratings, however the newer model has an improved damping circuit and in careful listening tests, it is readily apparent, bear in mind, the speakers used are the same ones in both cases. If we are to go by the assertion this test, all the hard work of various amplifier designers and engineers is for nothing but to feed the figment of our imagination.

BTW: I have seen damping factor as low as 40 in tube amps but never have seen a figure of 10.

 

[mtrycrafts]

While doing my doctorate, I knew that several of my colleagues doing their thesis based it on assumptions and some even went further to put radically different views and theories so as to dramatize and make their thesis more attractive, just because one gets a Ph.D. and posts a paper doesn't make his/her word absolute as you can see in the case of this so called paper telling us that a damping factor of 10 is adequate. I have two models of power amps from the same company, one older and one newer models, both with same power ratings, however the newer model has an improved damping circuit and in careful listening tests, it is readily apparent, bear in mind, the speakers used are the same ones in both cases. If we are to go by the assertion this test, all the hard work of various amplifier designers and engineers is for nothing but to feed the figment of our imagination.

BTW: I have seen damping factor as low as 40 in tube amps but never have seen a figure of 10.

Perhaps if you read more tube test reports in Stereopile, you will see DF much lower than 10 which is based on .8 ohm output impedance, about average for tube amps, or even low.

Did you even read the paper? Then you would know that DF is nothing but a ration. Nominal speaker impedance and amp output impedance. What is there to build a circuit around then?

I am glad you supplied some real evidence and citations to support your contentions and claims, were able to refute the paper, its formulas and calculations so eloquently. You even included some listeing test. Impressive.
I have to consider them carefully and perhaps reconsider my position.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Because I don't have to convince you or anyboby else, that is why. If you choose to believe it then that is ok by me. You assume that I have to look up some article or paper to prove to you otherwise but what you don't know is that I don't need to. Some people do know what they are talking about son, don't forget that. I'm sure you post a lot around forums like this and therefore think you know what you are talking about and that is ok also. Just don't spread incorrect information to people that do not have the knowledge you think you have.

You keep asserting incorrect information is posted, yet you offer nothing, zero to anyone, that the posted information is incorrect. How about naming names of people who do know something? Maybe I can discuss it with them? Can you do that? Or, you don't have to do that either. We should just accept you on blind faith? I don't have any.
Why should anyone believe you?

You coul dhave informed everyone here, changed peoples mind, advanced the course of science that Mr Pierce would appreciate too. What do you do? Make excuses. Wonderful.

You don't have to convince me, your citations may do that. It is obvious that you posted nothing to convince anyone. You were affored an opportunity to correct the misinformation but you run and hide behind silly quotes that you don't have to do anything. You are right, you don't have to do anything.
No one will believe you. Why should they?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Although I am on the side of the 'objectivists' that favor science and DBTs, just because someone posts a link to paper, doesn't mean that that particular paper is accurate or even accepted by the authors peers.

Only when the majority, if not all, similar papers back up the same claims can we consider them to be definitive. After all, the idiots the believe in ball bearings and super-duper-cd mats write papers too.

The challenger was requested for information to support his claim and assertion and to refute the cited paper or where it is misinformation, its contents accuracy or lack there of.

He informes us that he doesn't have to do anything. So, we should just accept his assertions that misinformation is posted? Based one what? Because he said so, offerening nothing???
Too funny.