• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What makes the most impact in sound quality

Uh John, don't quit your day job. :D

Nik, I don't think you're getting what Joe is saying. Every amplifier has a transfer function. It's just the output divided by the input. It's a way to show what the amp is doing. A perfect transfer function for an amp would be a a straight line at a higher level than the input. Whether a perfect transfer function is aurally appealing is up to the listener.

How successful are the best amps at creating this straight line? I'm simply curious on how much deviation a quality amp typically has, if they come close or not.
 
Uh John, don't quit your day job. :D

Nik, I don't think you're getting what Joe is saying. Every amplifier has a transfer function. It's just the output divided by the input. It's a way to show what the amp is doing. A perfect transfer function for an amp would be a a straight line at a higher level than the input. Whether a perfect transfer function is aurally appealing is up to the listener.

Not that I don't get it.
I just don't see the point of that TF.
It has no practical resemblance with what's good and bad when based on measurements.
If it was like I was, on behalf of what I hear, judge and define the TF, then it would be different.
But then again, how many opinions would there be about that?

"dolph"
 
How successful are the best amps at creating this straight line? I'm simply curious on how much deviation a quality amp typically has, if they come close or not.

There's no simple answer. The problem is that word, "best". There are amps out there that are incredibly linear with very little distortion (distortion being any deviation from the input signal other than gain). Many people don't like them because they're too sterile sounding. Tube amps tend to wander off the straight line but it's in a direction that many find pleasing. Therein lies the crux of the whole discussion. Which is better, perfect linearity or aural pleasantness? (is that a word?)
 
Uh John, don't quit your day job. :D

Nik, I don't think you're getting what Joe is saying. Every amplifier has a transfer function. It's just the output divided by the input. It's a way to show what the amp is doing. A perfect transfer function for an amp would be a a straight line at a higher level than the input. Whether a perfect transfer function is aurally appealing is up to the listener.

Thank you. Here's a link to Stereophile Magazine on this subject.
http://www.carveraudio.com/CarverChallenge.pdf
 
Not that I don't get it.
I just don't see the point of that TF.
It has no practical resemblance with what's good and bad when based on measurements.
If it was like I was, on behalf of what I hear, judge and define the TF, then it would be different.
But then again, how many opinions would there be about that?

"dolph"

I know that English is not your native tongue, but that really doesn't make any sense. Can you rephrase it?

The point of a transfer function (TF) is just a way to measure the linearity of an amplifier. In a technical sense it is one of the most important measurements when judging an amplifier's accuracy.

It may have no bearing (or very little, anyway) on what you like and/or judge as sounding good but that does not mean it isn't useful.

It is analogous to a frequency response curve for a speaker. You may or may not understand what it is saying, you may or may not care, but it is a tool to use.
 
I know that English is not your native tongue, but that really doesn't make any sense. Can you rephrase it?

The point of a transfer function (TF) is just a way to measure the linearity of an amplifier. In a technical sense it is one of the most important measurements when judging an amplifier's accuracy.

It may have no bearing (or very little, anyway) on what you like and/or judge as sounding good but that does not mean it isn't useful.

It is analogous to a frequency response curve for a speaker. You may or may not understand what it is saying, you may or may not care, but it is a tool to use.

Let me rephrase it like this:

When I made Master Recordings of high quality on 15 ips ½-track open reel tapes of live and studio events, it's kind of easy for me to judge if reproduction in any way is close to, honest to, trustful fidelity compared with the, let's call it "The Analogue Reference".

So no matter how good TF measurements, how linear an amp you might be able to present for me, I wouldn't give a hoot when my hearing tells me different on my own master recordings.

Do you need another rephrasing?

"dolph"
 
Hey Marc, could I get a clarification of terminology from you? You continually talk about "source first" and "speaker first" camps. However, you also say that most of the "source first" guys have better speakers than the "speaker first" guys. I'm wondering what you actually mean by "source first".

Do you mean that the source is the most important part of the chain and will trump having lower quality stuff downstream? If so, this seems to be contradicted by the "source first" guys having the highest of high end speakers. If the source were the only component that really mattered there wouldn't be any need for those speakers.

Ray it's not about it trumping everything downstream. But rather it is the source of the stream and therefore must be as pure as possible. For vinyl that means getting the enormous amount of info that is in those grooves out. And trust me great tables can do that. But just like any movement of the speaker box while playing sound cancels out sound. The mechanics of turntables provide extraction without addition or smearing on a micro level.

The source first thinking says, nothing can make up for what was never extracted or lost at the source.

Or do you mean that these folks (and you) start with a superb source and then work downstream to put together a chain of components worthy of the source?

Exactly. Get the source right. It allows everything after it to at least play to its potential. And Linn proved again and again that a pair of decent speakers at their potential was more enjoyable than a pair of better speakers with a limited source.

It is unnoticed or ignored but I have said several times on these threads that I run the same arm / cart combo on two very good tables and the better table of the two is far better. And this becomes more apparent as the volume goes up. And that is usually overlooked. But monster tables can be played at much louder volumes with far better performance because the mechanics of these tables is superior and it is only the music that is getting louder and not the "table" itself.

You've stated several times that you're "source first" but you seem to have a real bias against the "speaker first" crew. You seem to say that all they do is sit around and upgrade speakers without regard to the source. If the first explanation above is what you think of as "source first" then I suppose this definition of "speaker first" would fit. However, if you are working from the second definition of "source first" then it seems you're unfairly condemning the "speaker first" guys. It would seem that, working from the 2nd definition, a "speaker first" guy would start with a superb pair of speakers and then work backwards to feed it the best signal possible and could conceivably come up with the exact same system as a "source first" approach.

I hear what your saying but my answer is based in experience not theory. Ray IME the speaker first crowd usually believes that the sources are all pretty much the same and the gains at the source are therfore small in comparison to speakers. IMO it's not the amount or size of the difference but the importance of it that is at work. Because source first guys have spent most of their time and money improving the source they listen "past" the speakers upstream. While speaker first guys listen to the "speakers" themselves and focus on the power they get and their position in the room.

Said a different way source first guys keep upgrading the source and therefore listen to thier gear to hear those source upgrades. Which over time become the standard they get used to. Any step back is many times more obvious than a step forward to them.

While speaker guys change speakers and amp/speaker combos looking for the end result they like. To them the sound they hear originates at the speakers.

If a guy that uses a budget turntable could take my, Heybook/Rega/Clearaudio home for a month and play his own records. And then hook their budget table back up they would understand everything I've said in this thread in 1 song.

Now consider the fact that the Heybook on my second system is considered a budget table to most source first guys I know!



marc mc
 
Last edited:
Most amps have very good TF (freq vs gain).

Try a +3db, 1KHZ square wave, 50% DC into a 8ohms dummy load observed in an oscilloscope. Check for top/bottom flatness, fast transition, and sharp corners observe under/overshoot and ringing. If you have a digital scope you can measure the mentioned characteristics.

I believe that a square wave is very thought to reproduce and makes a good simple test for amplifiers.
 
Let me rephrase it like this:

When I made Master Recordings of high quality on 15 ips ½-track open reel tapes of live and studio events, it's kind of easy for me to judge if reproduction in any way is close to, honest to, trustful fidelity compared with the, let's call it "The Analogue Reference".

So no matter how good TF measurements, how linear an amp you might be able to present for me, I wouldn't give a hoot when my hearing tells me different on my own master recordings.

Do you need another rephrasing?

"dolph"

I think I've had a similar reaction. I read all the time how tube amps bring in distortion, etc, yet when I switch from one of my solid state amps to one of my tube amps, I'm always struck by how much closer to my memory of reality these tube amps get. The timbre of instruments just sounds much more real, at least to my ears. Maybe it's all an illusion brought on by harmonic distortion, but stereo is an illusion anyway so I'm fine with that.
 
starchie_thumb.jpg
 
Round and round we go.....

Anybody else think the horse is dead enough now?

This horse died years ago, we're just kicking the bones around now. I think it sounds better when I kick the skull than the ribs, though. There's a more natural sound to it.
 
Round and round we go.....

Anybody else think the horse is dead enough now?

Then maybe your best course of action might be to just ignore the thread and let those of us inclined to waste our time do so?

This horse died years ago, we're just kicking the bones around now. I think it sounds better when I kick the skull than the ribs, though. There's a more natural sound to it.

It really depends on what kind of shoes you're wearing.
 
Hey, it was just a suggestion. Sitting around telling other people how they're wasting their time seems like a monumental waste of time to me.
 
Maybe the best course of action would be to watch your dog chasing his tail !!!!

These type of discussions are of far more value than you think. Forget the guys that are posting! we all chose and followed our paths years ago. Think about the people new to this hobby that have yet to choose. Consider for a second the insights of the contributors and stop thinking about resolving anything.

IMO if a guy goes out of his way to hear a great turntable and an iconic pair of speakers then the members that posted these ideas made a difference to future audiophiles.

BTW I have been chasing my tail since the day I started and every turn has landed me in front of better gear. You should try it. And though I don't agree with all the paths others have taken I like to think that I have learned alot from RayW, Tom B and others.

marc mc
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth... one of the reasons I upgraded my turntable to what I have now was from rethinking my position on 'source' vs 'speakers' after being involved in one of these threads. So, for those trying to convince people....sometimes, some of us actually are convinced, and some of us actually do change our positions.

That thread, whichever one it was, was not a waste to me. Might have been a waste to my wallet, but not to my ears!
 
These type of discussions are of far more value than you think. Forget the guys that are posting! we all chose and followed our paths years ago. Think about the people new to this hobby that have yet to choose. Consider for a second the insights of the contributors and stop thinking about resolving anything.

I

I think the newcomer might be more confused than ever after reading this thread!:D

But seriously, I totally agree that this is a worthwhile discussion, and moreover, it's entertaining and in some ways informative. I guess for some of it's not entertaining, but they stick around anyway. :scratch2:
 
Back
Top Bottom