They are pitching toward gullible people who don't actually understand what it means. "Hey, our competitor is 80, so we're 240, three times better!"Are they all on a different planet?
They are pitching toward gullible people who don't actually understand what it means. "Hey, our competitor is 80, so we're 240, three times better!"Are they all on a different planet?
No, they are not. See also here including the following posts/test report: Link
Dämpfungsfaktor an 4 Ohm bei 63Hz/1kHz/14kHz: 48/45/19
DAMPING FACTOR
- 350 at 20 Hz, 8-Ohms
- 254 at 1 kHz, 8-Ohms
- 34 at 20 kHz, 8-Ohms
- 7 at 200 kHz, 8-Ohms
Source impedance affects the frequency response, not just at bass but throughout the audible range. But... claims that consequent frequency response variations of hundredths of a dB are clearly audible are absolutely ludicrous.There is a lot of discussion on ASR about damping factor (DF), that is worth a search, so recommended.
Your observations aside, for the moment, align with a DF, confirmed by Stereo.de.
Stereo.de AHB3 damping factor measurements is an outlier.
Here are the Benchmark AHB2 for damping factor:
Here are the DF measurements from SoundStage:
View attachment 231747
Damping factor is most important in bass frequencies but with these we can compare 1 kHz.
Stereo.de 48, Benchmark 254, and SoundStage 225.
I have no idea what Stereo.de is doing, and perhaps they don't either.
Concerning your observations, the perhaps 48 seems low but is still higher than necessary.
I observe no issues with the AHB2 and tight bass driving the Salon2s full range.
I have disconnected the upper section and listened to the bass 150 Hz and below on the Salon2s which that are -3 dB 23 Hz and this cannot be described as tight with any amplifier. I have driven there with Parasound amps with DF spec'ed at > 1100 and I find no audible difference in bass. If anything, the AHB2 is better, perhaps due to its tightly regulated power supply and minimal phase shift.
- Rich
Source impedance affects the frequency response, not just at bass but throughout the audible range. But... claims that consequent frequency response variations of hundredths of a dB are clearly audible are absolutely ludicrous.
.015db is the difference between a speaker which is 3 meters away and one which is 3.005 meters away.
.015db is the difference between a speaker which is 3 meters away and one which is 3.005 meters away.
Seems to me that the "THX Technology" is just a newer spin on Peter Walkers Current Dumping...AHB2 took the advantage of THX technology, is good/great but far from perfect. It's a shame not to expand further based on that THX.
From business perspective, esp. for tech-related companies, not continue developing/improving new product is a path to death and competition will soon catch up. Is it just to make $$ and forgot about the original passion to audio technology?
From consumer point of view, I'd think twice of buying products from such companies because it means no future upgrade path and investment will be obsolete, forget about "classic".
I apologize for not being able to lay my hands on the source at the moment, but my understanding is that studies have shown that 0.2dB appears to be the minimum volume difference that humans can detect, and only in very specific circumstances - and such small volume differences are not even necessarily perceived as differences in volume (but rather in some kind of detectable difference that people cannot necessarily describe).
Some things we are more sensitive to than others.... I haven't seen a study on horizontal location cues vs frequency/level sensitivity...Let's talk about that for a second.
0.2dB came up the other day actually. Since the early 1970s when my father brought home a Marantz 1060 amplifier, plugged it in, listened to one his many classical test pieces and instantly proclaimed it was left sided, both him and I can easily hear the imbalances (volume differences) between the channels of any amplifier when played in a room you know. I think you can do that too and probably do it all the time either consciously or unconsciously.
The level difference on that actual amplifier was measured by me just last week and is 0.2dB louder on the left channel. Just 0.2dB. There is nothing wrong with any of the active stages- they are all identical in gain. It is the balance pot, which sits up front of everything and had an approximate 10% difference in taper resistance either side on the centre wiper point. The source is seeing a small variance in combined loading (bal and vol pots).
Many times when people here on ASR have posted excerpts for ABX testing, it is the relative channel levels with respect to one another (the image balance) that is the giveaway. A tiny movement of the image is a direct result of level changes in channels. We can easily hear that, and I would wager we could easily hear well below those numbers reliably when listening to stereo content with specific instrument placement.
Let's talk about that for a second.
0.2dB came up the other day actually. Since the early 1970s when my father brought home a Marantz 1060 amplifier, plugged it in, listened to one his many classical test pieces and instantly proclaimed it was left sided, both him and I can easily hear the imbalances (volume differences) between the channels of any amplifier when played in a room you know. I think you can do that too and probably do it all the time either consciously or unconsciously.
The level difference on that actual amplifier was measured by me just last week and is 0.2dB louder on the left channel. Just 0.2dB. There is nothing wrong with any of the active stages- they are all identical in gain. It is the balance pot, which sits up front of everything and had an approximate 10% difference in taper resistance either side on the centre wiper point. The source is seeing a small variance in combined loading (bal and vol pots).
Many times when people here on ASR have posted excerpts for ABX testing, it is the relative channel levels with respect to one another (the image balance) that is the giveaway. A tiny movement of the image is a direct result of level changes in channels. We can easily hear that, and I would wager we could easily hear well below those numbers reliably when listening to stereo content with specific instrument placement.
To be fair, no one was specific as to where and how the db variance was...An interesting point, John, and one that makes a lot of sense - L-R channel imbalances are no doubt much easier for humans to detect because the center image moves, or more generally because evolutionarily human hearing appears to have evolved to be quite sensitive to left-right ear differences as a way to pinpoint the location of things in the world.
But as @SIY notes, that's not the issue being discussed here. Fine to bring it up in the thread, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not 0.15dB variance in frequency response caused by damping factor (or anything else) is an audible concern.
Why, I have not seen another measurement at 4ohms!?Stereo.de AHB2 damping factor measurements is an outlier.
Why, I have not seen another measurement at 4ohms!?
Here is an answer from the Stereo Team:
We measure the damping factor on a resistive load (4 ohms). It is calculated from the ratio between the no-load voltage and the terminal voltage under load.
Isn't it important to look at the other operating conditions as well?