Limitations of blind testing procedures

[fas42]

1. Physics has to do with everything
2. Amps don't have a volume absent a speaker interface. Perhaps you mean output.
3. How do you measure "incompetence"?

Yes, physics dictates how well the electronics chain works, especially with regard to the power amplifier.

I obviously meant that in the combination of speaker and amplifier functioning at high volumes, that typically the amplifier will be the weaker link, in the areas I consider to be important.

To "measure" incompetence would require monitoring the output of the amplifier while driving the speaker at higher power levels; yes, this is already done to derive numbers, but the numbers are not related to what one hears. Subjectively, the term usually applied is "effortless" - a competent amplifier is asked to deliver more, and the sound gets louder - and nothing else happens; for incompetent units the tonal colouring starts to change, transients lose their bite, the treble begins to degenerate, "compression" is heard kicking in; the impression is that the system is under stress, and you don't want to keep listening at this level.

 

[watchnerd]

I obviously meant that in the combination of speaker and amplifier functioning at high volumes, that typically the amplifier will be the weaker link, in the areas I consider to be important.

We've been down this path before.

I have no idea why you think amps are typically the weak link compared to speakers.

 

[fas42]

We've been down this path before.

I have no idea why you think amps are typically the weak link compared to speakers.

Strangely enough, because every experiment and modification I have done to investigate this has come up with the same result: if I improve the behaviour of the amplifier the sound gets better and better, using the same speakers - my aim is to be able to use an amplifier up to the point of it clipping, with no noticeable deterioration in the sound; I haven't experienced a speaker to be a limitation yet in this goal.

What you call "messiness" is the typical symptom of electronics not working correctly; decades ago I went around with those test tracks, and found all systems, large and small, got "messy" very quickly. Many times the speakers were barely in first gear - it was very obvious that electronics were poorly sorted back then; but things have improved quite a bit, of late.

 

[watchnerd]

Many times the speakers were barely in first gear - it was very obvious that electronics were poorly sorted back then; but things have improved quite a bit, of late.

As you say, that was decades ago... if amps are much better now, why do you still blame the amps and not the speakers?

 

[fas42]

As you say, that was decades ago... if amps are much better now, why do you still blame the amps and not the speakers?

Because the majority of the amplifiers, or systems as a whole - rather than just all of them - still have problems. At a recent local audio show there were only a handful that showed good capability - I was impressed by the good performers, but disturbed that so many still showed all the usual signs - especially from brands that nominally would be expected to do better.

 

[watchnerd]

Because the majority of the amplifiers, or systems as a whole - rather than just all of them - still have problems. At a recent local audio show there were only a handful that showed good capability - I was impressed by the good performers, but disturbed that so many still showed all the usual signs - especially from brands that nominally would be expected to do better.

Okay, but why do you think that's the amps if amps have gotten better?

 

[oivavoi]

Because the majority of the amplifiers, or systems as a whole - rather than just all of them - still have problems. At a recent local audio show there were only a handful that showed good capability - I was impressed by the good performers, but disturbed that so many still showed all the usual signs - especially from brands that nominally would be expected to do better.

Why don't you just buy the Hypex ncore 400? Plenty of power, and in every conceivable area that can be measured they measure insanely good. Plus, lots of subjectivist audiophiles seem to be very happy with them. I would just buy them, stop worrying about amps, and move on to the next part of the chain.

 

[fas42]

Okay, but why do you think that's the amps if amps have gotten better?

From personal experience. Decades ago, the system would perform if the electronics were enhanced, with only minor adjustments to the speakers; using those same speakers now, with current amplifiers in the good category, would deliver similar results. It's highly unlikely that amplifiers have been improved in the interim, but loudspeakers have got worse, causing those systems which showed relatively lacklustre behaviour to be that way.

I've already mentioned hearing an ambitious, expensive JBL speaker at that show, which failed to fire when the volume was raised. Even though the amplifier was an Accuphase I would still lay the blame on the latter - to me, it clearly displayed inadequate driving ability for such a speaker.

 

[fas42]

Why don't you just buy the Hypex ncore 400? Plenty of power, and in every conceivable area that can be measured they measure insanely good. Plus, lots of subjectivist audiophiles seem to be very happy with them. I would just buy them, stop worrying about amps, and move on to the next part of the chain.

I would agree on using Ncore amps - yes, there is plenty of evidence that they are capable of excellent, subjective performance.

 

[watchnerd]

but loudspeakers have got worse

I want to make sure I get this right:

You're saying loudspeakers are worse now than decades ago?

 

[fas42]

I want to make sure I get this right:

You're saying loudspeakers are worse now than decades ago?

Of course not ... I said, "It's highly unlikely that amplifiers have been improved in the interim, but loudspeakers have got worse, ...", meaning I don't think that a combination of, amps being better AND loudspeakers being poorer, explains why some systems still don't deliver the quality.

 

[Cosmik]

You're saying loudspeakers are worse now than decades ago?

Ludicrous maybe, but there are two things that could possibly be mentioned:
1. Speakers used to be wide boxes but have evolved into narrow boxes for reasons of fashion.

What is true of the mini-monitor, that it cannot be EQed to sound right, is also true of narrow-front floor-standers. They sound too midrange-oriented because of the nature of the room sound. This is something about the geometry of the design. It cannot be substantially altered by crossover decisions and so on. How then can it be that narrowfront speakers are nearly ubiquitous? How did audio wander off into what amounts to a blind alley?

2. Speakers used to have sealed bass, but are now usually bass reflex - again it is not obvious whether this is for good engineering reasons or simply because that is how everyone else does it.

...ported enclosures generally result in poorer transient response at low frequencies than in well-designed sealed box systems
...at frequencies below 'tuning', the port unloads the cone and allows it to move much as if the speaker were not in an enclosure at all. ...high-powered systems using a bass reflex design are often protected by a filter that removes signals below a certain frequency. Unfortunately, electrical filtering adds further frequency-dependent group delay.
...Ports often are placed in the front baffle, and may thus transmit unwanted midrange frequencies reflected from within the box. If undersized, a port may also generate "wind noise" or "chuffing", due to turbulence around the port openings at high air speeds. Enclosures with a rear-facing port mask these effects to some extent, but they cannot be placed directly against a wall without causing audible problems.

To keep it on topic, we could point out these subtleties are further aspects that render all listening tests just tiny little pockets in the overall 'problem space'.

 

[March Audio]

Why don't you just buy the Hypex ncore 400? Plenty of power, and in every conceivable area that can be measured they measure insanely good. Plus, lots of subjectivist audiophiles seem to be very happy with them. I would just buy them, stop worrying about amps, and move on to the next part of the chain.

Thats what I did

 

[watchnerd]

Ludicrous maybe, but there are two things that could possibly be mentioned:
1. Speakers used to be wide boxes but have evolved into narrow boxes for reasons of fashion.

2. Speakers used to have sealed bass, but are now usually bass reflex - again it is not obvious whether this is for good engineering reasons or simply because that is how everyone else does it.

To keep it on topic, we could point out these subtleties are further aspects that render all listening tests just tiny little pockets in the overall 'problem space'.

I think it's equally likely that, because @fas42 likes to stress test mostly with classic 70's rock, that the corresponding speakers of that era sound right to him.

 

[DonH56]

Ah, Advent... Maybe Cerwin-Vega?

 

[watchnerd]

Ah, Advent... Maybe Cerwin-Vega?

Or some sweet "white van" speakers:

 

[Sal1950]

Ah, Advent... Maybe Cerwin-Vega?

Yep but this is where Cosmik, some others, and I are going to disagree.
The Advents types were sealed boxes that were part of the movement to make small speakers with a flat bass response. The drive for wife acceptable speakers to replace the large horns and vented designs needed in the new Stereo and Quad world of the time they built a ton of low efficiency boxes that needed high power amps to drive. But in this move for WAF factor we ended up with a bunch of boxes with little life or excitement in their sound compared to the stuff they replaced no matter how much power you pumped into them.
Thank goodness the last couple decades have seen the return of high efficiency designs.
YMMV

 

[fas42]

I think it's equally likely that, because @fas42 likes to stress test mostly with classic 70's rock, that the corresponding speakers of that era sound right to him.

Not really. It's mostly circumstances that it happened that way, if I was younger I would be using material from the 90's, probably - in exactly the same way. That Status Quo material happened to be perfect for the task - which was to point out that my "monster" Perreaux amplifier had a weakness; so then I used the same track on other gear I came across, to see if they had similar issues ... and all of them did, only they were still worse ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ludicrous maybe, but there are two things that could possibly be mentioned:
1. Speakers used to be wide boxes but have evolved into narrow boxes for reasons of fashion.

2. Speakers used to have sealed bass, but are now usually bass reflex - again it is not obvious whether this is for good engineering reasons or simply because that is how everyone else does it.

I think item #1 has more to do with dispersion and diffraction than fashion, though fashion is some of it.

I think item #2 is because there are obvious gains in doing ported speakers if done well. It is easier to do well than in the past. Designing such systems is relatively a piece of cake. So you see more of this type to benefit in depth of low end response and/or efficiency.

I have a little DIY speaker book from the mid 1960's. The section on bass reflex is sort of how not to be certain the results are horrible and otherwise try these ratios and oh yeah good luck. It might work. You really need a sealed box.

 

[Thomas savage]

Some posts have been removed , a thank you goes out to the members concerned as they deleted their own posts knowing them to be fruitless.

I tidied up the last couple as they no longer has context given the removal of the quoted posts..

It's a Intresting subject ( speaker sensitivity and the trends of fashion in this regard) il start a thread.