PMA, 'no comment' is a pretty good response. I don't know why Charles can't publish his opinion. without a lot of back talk. It is his opinion and experience. It is similar to mine, but not exactly the same. Still, I would not quibble with him over the differences.
I really hope that Bob Cordell will get some of the newer National devices and test, as well as listen to them, himself. IF he really likes them, over all discrete designs, well then, his quest should be over. Ours too, if we come to find the same thing.
I really hope that Bob Cordell will get some of the newer National devices and test, as well as listen to them, himself. IF he really likes them, over all discrete designs, well then, his quest should be over. Ours too, if we come to find the same thing.
From the same issue, page 84-85, Recommended components, Solid state two channel power amplifiers, A-rating:
/order as per magazine/
Ayre Acoustics MX-R, Ayre V-5xe, Bel Canto e.One Ref1000, Chord SPM 14000, Classé Omega Omicron, darTZeel NHB-108, DNM PAS3S, Halcro dm88, Halcro dm38, Krell Evolution 600, Lamm Industries M1.2, Lamm Industries M2.2, Mark Levinson No.33H, Mark Levinson No.431, mbl Reference 9007, Musical Fidelity kW750, Musical Fidelity Supercharger 550K, Parasound Halo JC1, Plinius SA-Reference, Simaudio Moon Rock, Simaudio Moon Evolution.
/order as per magazine/
Ayre Acoustics MX-R, Ayre V-5xe, Bel Canto e.One Ref1000, Chord SPM 14000, Classé Omega Omicron, darTZeel NHB-108, DNM PAS3S, Halcro dm88, Halcro dm38, Krell Evolution 600, Lamm Industries M1.2, Lamm Industries M2.2, Mark Levinson No.33H, Mark Levinson No.431, mbl Reference 9007, Musical Fidelity kW750, Musical Fidelity Supercharger 550K, Parasound Halo JC1, Plinius SA-Reference, Simaudio Moon Rock, Simaudio Moon Evolution.
Magazines!
As long as the component is expensive it applies for an A-rating. Simple as that!
Magazines....!!!
mlloyd1 said:that's a pretty wide philosophical range (for example, ayre versus halcro) to all get the coveted "a" rating.
i guess you really can get your cat skinned any way you want ...
mlloyd1
As long as the component is expensive it applies for an A-rating. Simple as that!
Magazines....!!!
You will most probably see 'my opinion' published in 'Stereophile in a few months. Then they can interview Dr. Candy, etc. Nothing wrong with that. We are all 'A' rated designers. 
Charles, is that the substrate you use? I use teflon on CTC and the new Vendetta boards, but I leave it to Carl T., my layout expert to chose. I now love Teflon.
Charles, is that the substrate you use? I use teflon on CTC and the new Vendetta boards, but I leave it to Carl T., my layout expert to chose. I now love Teflon.
syn08 said:
syn08, thanks for the tip. That’s it!
I just read Paul Bolins review and I am a bit shocked that the Halcro DM58 is the one that Charles insinuated suffered bad sound due to the use of negative feedback. Wow, did he ever take that out of context!
For those who don’t want to plod through the whole review, the relevant statement by the reviewer was:
"As LP followed CD and visa versa, the Halcros proved themselves transcendently neutral. Dry, dull, or aggressive recordings sounded much more so through the DM58s, while plush, overstuffed marshmallows sounded sweeter and cushier than ever, albeit more transparent than I had ever heard before. By definition, the colorations I'd thought I'd heard with some recordings were not that at all, as they were mutually exclusive and entirely recording-specific. What I was hearing was the unalloyed sound of the music as recorded. Depending on the recordings and the associated equipment, this was not always a good thing."
Some other comments about the amplifier in the same review:
"The dynamics, purity, and total transparency were beyond anything in my prior experience."
"So much information came through the Halcros that new shades of nuance and meaning were revealed in every recording I listened to through them."
"Timbrally, the DM-58 was the closest thing to dead neutral that I’ve heard from any component."
"Recordings that should have sounded perfectly gorgeous … were breathtaking in their beauty."
"The Halcro offered dynamic performance that mere mortal amps cannot manage."
"The Halcro DM-58 is a paradigm-destroying component that could well-justify the creation of a Class A+ amplifier category in Recommended Components."
John Atkinson stated: "Halcro's DM58 offers astonishing performance for an amplifier, particularly when it comes to harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Most important, this does not appear to have been achieved by compromising other aspects of the amplifier's performance, as was the case in the THD Wars of the 1970s."
In February 2006, Brian Damkroger said: "My six months with the DM58’s have confirmed that PB's assessment was right on the money. Everything he said remains true: their uncanny silence, effortless dynamics, and, perhaps most of all, their incredible clarity, transparency, and neutrality – all were there in spades."
I think that Charles inadvertently made a compelling case FOR feedback, when one reads the whole review instead of one snippet carefully chosen out of context. That was naughty of you, Charles.
Cheers,
Bob
OTOH, John isn't making comments on plasma spray system BBs...
I suspect that the Class A rating has far less to do with topology and far more to do with publishing and promotion. Stereophile, as it should be, is in the business of selling entertaining magazines, not doing serious technical evaluation. To the extent they do the latter, it is purely in the service of the former.
SY said:
Expected .....
Then you can close it here. The diyforum, ain't that?
Are they only sales that count? Or results? Technical and engineering background, degrees?
Custom made equipment to promote Wilson Audio?
It is not that clear at all
If only popularity and sales were the measure, then Britney Spears and similar famous now would be the winners
Re: Magazines!
Hm. I've designed Creek Audio 5350SE - it was A-rated by Stereophile in 2002. It was probably one of the cheapest ever A-rated amplifiers with a price tag of $1500.
Alex
QSerraTico_Tico said:
As long as the component is expensive it applies for an A-rating. Simple as that!
Magazines....!!!
Hm. I've designed Creek Audio 5350SE - it was A-rated by Stereophile in 2002. It was probably one of the cheapest ever A-rated amplifiers with a price tag of $1500.
Alex
Bob Cordell said:
But Bob,
Things written in between the lines say a lot. My take on these comments mirrors Mr Hanson's.
In my experience, good designs will reproduce a questionable recording so that you can separate the recording choices (or bad equipment) from the music. It may sound like a bad recording but it doesn't sound the same on the next bad recording. This review alludes to a common thread that goes with the amplifier.
The rest of the comments are because the reviewer really doesn't want to skewer the design over a subtle effect, possibly because of it's price, it's reputation, his uncertainty as to whether he's using it correctly, maybe he doesn't want to burn bridges, whatever.
My take when I read this (originally) was that he had to point this out because he heard it and it did stand out relative to other amplifiers he's tested, but there were extenuating circumstances, we might say, and the effect was subtle (i.e. unmeasureable).
Good designs have a positive influence in the resolution of the system, which should only get more listenable, or what's the point?
My wife points out that, as our system has evolved, I make fewer disclaimers before I let her listen to it (never none, though!).
Regards, Mike
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_headache):
"Triggers
Nitroglycerin (glyceryl trinitrate) can sometimes induce cluster headaches in sufferers in a manner similar to spontaneous attacks. Ingestion of alcohol is recognized as a common trigger of cluster headaches when a person is in cycle or susceptible. Exposure to hydrocarbons (petroleum solvents, perfume) is also recognized as a trigger for cluster headaches. Some patients have a decreased tolerance to heat, and becoming overheated may act as a trigger. Playing 'Mercury Living Presence' cds through chip amps on Wilson speakers will trigger cluster or migraine headaches in some listeners. Napping causes a headache for some sufferers. The role of diet and specific foods in triggering cluster headaches is controversial and not well understood."
In all seriousness, though, I believe that the reason most magazines don't write bad reviews of products is, basically, they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Reviews of bad-sounding equipment are simply left out of the literature. The audiophile magazines tend to promote, as a whole, only top-quality stuff regardless of who advertises, and I personally agree with this practice, although I don't always jive with the subjective opinions of the reviewers.
The DIY community is full of wannabees who think they can rely on pure objectiveness to determine whether a product is any good or not. Voicing a design is far more strenuous and time-consuming (not to mention continual frustration, self-doubt, etc.) than designing and building one and you certainly can't voice an amp with test equipment.
John
Charles, I've read throug h your threads carefully and was particialrly struck by the comments relating to changes in sound when you moved the capacity banks up off the floor.
Seems to me like you have an EMC suscetiblity issues with your designs, since lifting stuff a few cm off the ground should not cause this kind of effect. Same comment about the ferrite beads.
If you are using CCFL's or strip lights in your lab, ditch them and go for incandecents. One other tip. Try an output inductor - about 2uH works wonders and really helps clean things up, as does a 1k/1nF filter on the input side.
Hope this helps - good luck.
Seems to me like you have an EMC suscetiblity issues with your designs, since lifting stuff a few cm off the ground should not cause this kind of effect. Same comment about the ferrite beads.
If you are using CCFL's or strip lights in your lab, ditch them and go for incandecents. One other tip. Try an output inductor - about 2uH works wonders and really helps clean things up, as does a 1k/1nF filter on the input side.
Hope this helps - good luck.
jlsem said:
I'm sincerely hoping that my comments we're not being referred to in the above quote. I've spent thirty years trying to remove the voodoo and the like from my experience. Where I'm at now as far as my system and my accomplishments backs up any comment I make.
The only thing that stinks is that there is no forum to present ones accomplishment through unless, of course, as well as being an artist you can be a businessman.
Voicing a design is another way of saying that we played around with it (often based on a lot of education and experience) until it sounded good... If we pay attention and follow all the clues we don't need to guess. The results are foreseeable and audible, and once verified, you have the basis for have solid, defendable opinions.
Regards, Mike.
SY, you are dead wrong! If we were not friends and my fear of making trouble, I would say it stronger. Parasound used to advertise bigtime in 'Stereophile'. The highest level we could achieve was 'B' and that took two tries. Then, even when we made bigger and 'better measuring' power amps, we dropped off the list completely, even though we were reviewed.
It takes real effort to get an 'A' rating, just like winning a auto race, or a sports event. You insult all of us who have succeeded.
It takes real effort to get an 'A' rating, just like winning a auto race, or a sports event. You insult all of us who have succeeded.
Once upon a time, The Absolute Sound used to circulate the more interesting pieces of equipment among several of their reviewing staff--sometimes more than once. This lead to the same piece being reviewed multiple times in successive issues and, given that each reviewer had a slightly different take on what a stereo system should accomplish, it allowed the reader to triangulate the sound of the circuit as long as they were familiar with the members of the staff. Sadly, that approach has fallen by the wayside and we're left with an unending series of reviews that stand alone. There was much to be said for the contrast and compare philosophy.
The most valuable things a reviewer can do are to state their preferences and be consistent. Once I figured out where Harry Pearson was coming from I was able to understand immediately that his mention of a 'slight upper midrange glare' in the original Martin Logan CLS meant that I would find the speaker intolerable. I later had the opportunity to hear the CLS and it was exactly the way I'd understood it to be from Pearson's description even though the rest of his review was quite favorable. The point is not that I found the upper midrange glare to be 'slight,' but that I was familiar enough with his likes, dislikes, and writing style to interpret his 'slight' as my 'intolerable.' It did not mean that he was a leaden-eared, incompetent moron. Indeed, that review was worth its weight in gold to me, because the speaker was, some twenty-five years ago, a speaker that might have interested me. On reading Pearson's review, I knew that it wasn't worth my time and trouble and I went on to the next thing, eventually buying a pair of Magneplanar Tympani IVs.
Part of the problem is that many people don't have a clue as to the proper function of a reviewer. It's not that I have to agree with a particular reviewer about, say, The Bourne Ultimatum, but that I am able to map my opinions to theirs; not necessarily in a 1:1 correspondence, but in essence having a Rosetta Stone that allows me to understand that their complaint about Jason Bourne being violent might be true for them, but for me as a movie-goer I comprehend that he was made into a killer. (It also helps that I read the books, but that's another thing...).
It seems these days that people expect their reviewers to share their exact views every day and in every way, and that any deviation "obviously" means that the reviewer is a damned fool who is (pick one) deaf/retarded/accepting pay from the manufacturer for a good review/accepting pay from a competitor for a bad review/etc. Or put another way: They're simply too lazy to understand the reviewer's point of view and do a little mental shifting in order to bring it into focus for themselves.
But there's a lot of that sort of "I'm right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot" mentality around these days.
Oh, well.
Grey
The most valuable things a reviewer can do are to state their preferences and be consistent. Once I figured out where Harry Pearson was coming from I was able to understand immediately that his mention of a 'slight upper midrange glare' in the original Martin Logan CLS meant that I would find the speaker intolerable. I later had the opportunity to hear the CLS and it was exactly the way I'd understood it to be from Pearson's description even though the rest of his review was quite favorable. The point is not that I found the upper midrange glare to be 'slight,' but that I was familiar enough with his likes, dislikes, and writing style to interpret his 'slight' as my 'intolerable.' It did not mean that he was a leaden-eared, incompetent moron. Indeed, that review was worth its weight in gold to me, because the speaker was, some twenty-five years ago, a speaker that might have interested me. On reading Pearson's review, I knew that it wasn't worth my time and trouble and I went on to the next thing, eventually buying a pair of Magneplanar Tympani IVs.
Part of the problem is that many people don't have a clue as to the proper function of a reviewer. It's not that I have to agree with a particular reviewer about, say, The Bourne Ultimatum, but that I am able to map my opinions to theirs; not necessarily in a 1:1 correspondence, but in essence having a Rosetta Stone that allows me to understand that their complaint about Jason Bourne being violent might be true for them, but for me as a movie-goer I comprehend that he was made into a killer. (It also helps that I read the books, but that's another thing...).
It seems these days that people expect their reviewers to share their exact views every day and in every way, and that any deviation "obviously" means that the reviewer is a damned fool who is (pick one) deaf/retarded/accepting pay from the manufacturer for a good review/accepting pay from a competitor for a bad review/etc. Or put another way: They're simply too lazy to understand the reviewer's point of view and do a little mental shifting in order to bring it into focus for themselves.
But there's a lot of that sort of "I'm right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot" mentality around these days.
Oh, well.
Grey
john curl said:
Yeah, serious objective and subjective evaluation alright……..
“Dry, dull, or aggressive recordings sounded much more so through the DM58s, while plush, overstuffed marshmallows sounded sweeter and cushier than ever, albeit more transparent than I had ever heard before. By definition, the colorations I'd thought I'd heard with some recordings”
I can’t believe that seemingly sensible people here actually pay money to read this nonsensical, meaningless fluff.
Incidentally, though, I quite like marshmallows. Big warm soft ones, like pillows..........with a little cherry on top.............
Oops. I think I've just strayed off topic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.