Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Right and Wrong: Don't play Straw Man

Posted by thetubeguy1954 (A) on November 16, 2007 at 09:14:51

In Reply to: Right and Wrong: Don't play Straw Man posted by Sordidman on November 15, 2007 at 13:03:28:

Sordidman,

You asked many questions which morricab has answered below. What morricab wrote is almost exactly what I believe or as close as anyone else can be to what I believe who isn't me. Additionally morricab has said it in words better than I could have said myself. So to the questions I don't answer read morricab's reply and answers.

There's one point I'll address that morricab didn't, of course he may believe differently than I do about this statement. You asked a few questions about this one point that I'll address seperately, ok?

1) Sordidman you stated high end audio components are artisan products that are "voiced" with the intention of providing an artist-like view on the musical experience: an idiosyncratic take on what is good sound, - or what is accurate sound for the builder/designer. This is easily explained by the difference between Krell and McIntosh.

1A) Once an engineer who's building an audio amplifier "voices" it with the intention of providing an artist-like view on the musical experience or his specific idiosyncratic take on what is good sound, then he's creating a deliberate euphonic device that might even be quite pleasing to listen to, but it's no longer an accurate replicator of real acoustic instruments in a real specific space! Much to his credit Bob Carver admits to voicing his amps so that women's voices are lush and captivating to listen to. I'm know Bob Carver has admitted to doing that in Stereophile, TAS or one of the other audio magazines. He didn't pretend it was more accurate this way, but he did believe it was more beautiful this way!

I disagree vehemently with your claim this is easily explained by the difference between Krell and McIntosh. First and foremost no one knows for sure (except the Krell and McIntosh engineers) whether these amps are voiced for a specific sound or if it's their best attempt at replicating real acoustic instruments in a specific space. If they intentionally voice their amplifiers to sound a specific way, they're creating euphonic devices, no matter how pleasing they sound. If they are attempting to replicate acoustic instruments in a specific space, we have a Reference Standard by which to compare which is the most accurate, those specific acoustic instruments in the same specific space. Now the amplifier that comes the closest to the sound of those specific acoustic instruments in the same specific space, is the most accurate, period! No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
=======================================================================
2) Both cannot be accurate, - because there sound is so disparate.

2A) Sordidman we start with a problem I mentioned above ---no one knows for sure whether these amps are voiced for a specific sound or if it's their best attempt at replicating real acoustic instruments in a specific space. Not knowing that one thing alone could be the sole reason for their sound being so disparate. However for the sake of this arguement let's assume both Krell and McIntosh WERE actually attempting to replicate acoustic instruments in a specific space as accurately as they possibly could. We still have problems to overcome which will be addressed further below in your other questions.
========================================================================
3) Are you saying that one of those manufacturers is screwing up?

3A) Not at all. As I stated above there are additional problems to overcome even if both of these manufactuers are attempting to replicate as accurately as possible the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space.

Much to your credit Sordidman you admit the amps themselves sound different. I agree with you 100% on that POV. As we agree on that perhaps we'll agree on this as well: no amplifier is 100% accurate, every amp colors or distorts the music one way or another. So begins the problems Krell & McIntosh must overcome.

Now imagine all the different things and amplifier must replicate to reproduce the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space...

a)Frequencies from treble, through midrange to bass and maybe beyond.
b)Harmonics and their overtones: The untrained human ear typically does not perceive harmonics as separate notes. Instead, they are perceived as the timbre of the tone.
c)Timbre: Which is how people distinguish a saxophone from a trumpet, even if both instruments are playing notes at the same pitch and amplitude.
d)PRaT: pace, rythym & timing of the music itself.
e)Notes: Their attack & decay of.
f)Imaging: The localization withing a specific space of a instrument or singer for example.
g)Soundstaging: There's width, depth and height.
h)Space: To me this sort of like a combination of Imaging & Soundstaging. I sense the space between the instruments and singers. I believe it's done via ambient clues, but may be mistaken.
i) Others?

All of these made up the original acoustic event. Remember that means Krell & McIntosh must attempt to replicate as accurately as possible the sound of a-i as produced by unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. Also remember no amp is 100% accurate. So which of a-i above is the most important thing to keep? Which is the least important? Every capacitor, inductor, resistor plays a part in the sound. Change one part and the timbre the manufactuer worked so hard to get as accurate as they possibly could, now deteriorates, but harmonics and their overtones get more accurate. Is the amp now more or less accurate?
=========================================================================
4)Are you saying that both of these manufacturers build identical sounding products?

4A) No, I know they sound a good bit different!
=========================================================================
5)I am saying that they have two idiosyncratic and unique viewpoints on what constitutes "accuracy," - or maybe even good sound.

5A) Unlike you Sordidman I cannot presume to speak for people I've never met. I have no idea whether Krell or McIntosh specifically voice their amps to "sound good" like Bob Carver does or whether they're attempting to replicate as accurately as possible the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. If they're voicing they're amps they are not accurate, period. If they're attempting to replicate as accurately as possible the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. I believe they are working within the constraints of todays technology and because no amp is 100% accurate one might believe one set of limitations is more acceptable than another set of limitations. Do either do that because they have a unique viewpoint on what constitutes "accuracy," - or maybe even good sound? I doubt it. If they both are honestly working towards 100% accurate replication of the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. It's just the best they could do with the parts selected, the layout of the parts etc. That's one of the reasons they're always trying new parts ---they're striving to etch out yet one more percent further towards the goal of 100% accurate music replication. That seems logical to me.
=========================================================================
6)Do you think that the designers/builders of each of those two companies AGREE about what accuracy is?

6A) How can I possibly know that? Maybe Krell defines accurate as attempting to track the music signal from input to output as accurately as possible. Maybe McIntosh defines accurate as attempting to replicate as accurately as possible the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. If that's the case they definitely don't agree do they? Maybe both companies do what Bob Carver does any simply voice their components to simply sound beautiful to them. If that's the case neither of them are attempting to create accurate amps at all.

Now we're back at the beginning. Some engineers, backed up by people like yourself, are trying to pretend they are artists and know better than the musicians or the audiophiles buying the component how the music should really sound. What they should be building is a tool that would enable the audiophile to accurately replicate the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. After that anyone who wants to could add an equalizer to make the music sound how they want it to "IF" they don't want an accurate repliction. The problem with engineers believing they're artists is once they destroy the accurate replication (where accurate equals as accurate as we can make it) we can never get it back. If they'll allow it to remain accurate (as they should) we now all have the choice to alter as we so choose to in our homes. At the same time those of us who go attend live UNamplified musical events could still purchase amplifiers that replicate as accurately as possible the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a specific space. That way everyone's happy!

One last word. I believe what I believe not because Holt, Pearson, Cordesman or anyone else said it. I believe it because I've heard it for myself personally.

Thetubeguy1954

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---