measurement bollocks.

i think the only device tha let the 405 down was the 33 pre-amp , we used to use crown "AMCROM"IC 150 pre-amps with tannoy buckinghams, and in those days the 405' were very good we mainly monitored reggae and fusion,
 
YNMOAN said:
Those were the 'proper' ES amps, not the much more mass-market ES stuff that followed (and which Sony fans go all soft over).
__________________

I've listened to the Quad 34 and 306 ,mamy, many times (to a lesser extent the 44 and 606). To be honest, they never struck me as neutral, quite the opposite in fact - rather veiled and lacking in micro/macro dynamic; nicely made and good features though. I didn't have to read a magazine to learn this, it was easy enough to hear for myself.
Click to expand...

The key is 'easy enough to hear for myself' - it is when there is only reliance on the ears.

I wouldn't expect a 34 or 44 to sound identical to a properly implemented passive. Both are subtly tailored out of band but the filter effects can still be seen just at the edges of the 20hz-20khz range - we are only talking around 0.5dB but it might be audible sometimes.
Subtle effects though and certainly nothing to alter basic character or neutrality.

Naim pre amps follow a very similar path - tailoring is clear to see but the audible effect is still very subtle, and sometimes inaudible.
 
Sometime ago I used to have a 405 fed by a 44 pre-amp and looking into my Tannoy Berkeley speakers.I was happy enough with the sound but decided that a Quad 66 pre-amp would be a lot more convenient due simply to its remote control which would let me control the sound from where I was sitting.
When I put the 66 on I was very surprised.I was not looking for a change in the sound but the difference was impossible to ignore.It was so much better that it seemed to bring the whole system to life.
At a later date I decided to change the din connector on the 405 to a pair of phono connectors.A simple enough job and one where not much could go wrong.
The whole system lost the life that it had gained after putting the 66 on.
I checked my wiring and it was perfect.I tried various sets of phono leads that I had accumulated over the years but none made a difference that I could hear.
I reverted back to the din connector and everything was back to normal again.
I don't know what any of this means in theoretical terms but I mention it because it is what happened.
 
RobHolt said:
The key is 'easy enough to hear for myself' - it is when there is only reliance on the ears.

I wouldn't expect a 34 or 44 to sound identical to a properly implemented passive. Both are subtly tailored out of band but the filter effects can still be seen just at the edges of the 20hz-20khz range - we are only talking around 0.5dB but it might be audible sometimes.
Subtle effects though and certainly nothing to alter basic character or neutrality.

Naim pre amps follow a very similar path - tailoring is clear to see but the audible effect is still very subtle, and sometimes inaudible.
Click to expand...

I've heard a number of passive pre-amps too and none of them sounded much like the Quad pre-amps either. Despite offering similar sonic tailoring (as you say) to the Quad pre-amps the Naim obviously sound different.

I think measurement is important but I don't think that (currently) everything than can be heard can be measured (and we probably can't hear all that we can measure). Aside from making appropriate measurements (difficult in itself) there is the task of correlating those measurements, in a meaningful way, to what we actually hear - an altogether complex task.
 
Until someone can point to the measurement that distinguishes two different type of trumpet mutes in a busy jazz piece then i'm afraid measurement still has some catching up to do with the good old ears.

and I hate jazz.
 
YNMOAN said:
I've heard a number of passive pre-amps too and none of them sounded much like the Quad pre-amps either. Despite offering similar sonic tailoring (as you say) to the Quad pre-amps the Naim obviously sound different.

I think measurement is important but I don't think that (currently) everything than can be heard can be measured (and we probably can't hear all that we can measure). Aside from making appropriate measurements (difficult in itself) there is the task of correlating those measurements, in a meaningful way, to what we actually hear - an altogether complex task.
Click to expand...

Yes, you see assessing in an uncontrolled and purely subjective environment is a minefield. It's why I advocate blind tests as superior.
Play a Passive v Naim v Quad without the knowledge of which is playing and things fall into perspective.

Me sitting here and saying that Cyrus amplifiers are pants and sound like xyz is of no use to anyone other than me. it is purely my subjective opinion and a myriad of factors could have formed it. I've said before, but if you ask a question on a forum about a product or problem you'll often get a dozen completely contrary responses. No use at all and they cannot all be correct.
So apply some basic testing safeguards and see what happens. Then repeat the testing on the ears of others and see if patterns start to emerge.
That's how I do things and i think it gives a more reliable, and therefore a more useful result.

It all boils down to people being willing to admit that they are not infallible. Individuals naturally have confidence in their perceptive abilities but that confidence is often misplaced. The only way to find out is to test it. Simply saying 'I'm right and I know I'm right' doesn't cut it.
Only in audio (actually 'audiophile audio) in this an issue.


Just a thought on my Q34.
I did service it last year and when doing so I used Panasonic low Z PSU caps and some nice Silmic IIs I had left over form an old project for the signal path. Now I'm not a believer in such things but perhaps my Q34 is very special after all. I don't have an old one to hand sadly.
Quads are an an easy rebuild and I've toyed with idea of tricking this one out just to see what happens.
The old TL071 op amps could make way for new OPA604s and local decoupling could be applied around each stage. Some recording before and after might be interesting. I expect no improvement at all, but you should always test expectations, hence the OTT rebuild of the WD phono stage (which did bugger all expect empty my wallet).
 
sq225917 said:
Until someone can point to the measurement that distinguishes two different type of trumpet mutes in a busy jazz piece then i'm afraid measurement still has some catching up to do with the good old ears.

and I hate jazz.
Click to expand...

It can.

Didn't we cover this last week?
 
Rob, short of repeating myself I feel there is little more to be said on the matter. You seem to believe that all that is necessary to be measured can be measured and that all amplifiers that conform to a relatively limited set of said measurements will sound the same. On the other hand, I entirely disagree. I don't have to rely on my ears, many, many people have heard much the same thing (their interpretation, or taste, may vary, but their subjective experiences largely correlate). To be frank, your views are as 'right wing' in terms of pro measurement/testing as those of a recently departed member were anti measurement/testing.

It all boils down to people being willing to admit that they are not infallible
Click to expand...
with all due respect, it has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
 
YNMOAN said:
Rob, short of repeating myself I feel there is little more to be said on the matter. You seem to believe that all that is necessary to be measured can be measured and that all amplifiers that conform to a relatively limited set of said measurements will sound the same. On the other hand, I entirely disagree. I don't have to rely on my ears, many, many people have heard much the same thing (their interpretation, or taste, may vary, but their subjective experiences largely correlate). To be frank, your views are as 'right wing' in terms of pro measurement/testing as those of a recently departed member were anti measurement/testing.

with all due respect, it has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I simply ask that people remove bias, or as much as practically possible.
We can prove easily that bias exists, unless you are seriously suggesting that sighted listening doesn't have some pretty obvious limitations.

You've missed the point completely on my pro measurements stance.
The thread OP asserts that they are 'bollox' - what I have suggested is that a full and comprehensive set of tests can reveal the answers to what is heard. A few basic measurements will actually illustrate the most common subjective findings though.

There is nothing right wing or extreme in demanding thorough measured assessment or blind testing. The latter is the purest form of subjectivism you can get - you listen to everything using only your ears and then give a subjective opinion, one not skewed by the views of others, press, looks, price, reputation etc.

I also don't look for perfection in measurements. To me they are simply the means by which we illustrate in numeric/pictorial form what we hear.
For example, amplifier source impedance tells us a lot about how a loudspeaker will sound. That isn't about strict right and wrong, it is about understanding.

I can understand why people might not wish to obtain this knowledge but that doesn't make it bollox.
 
YNMOAN said:
...To be frank, your views are as 'right wing' in terms of pro measurement/testing as those of a recently departed member were anti measurement/testing...
Click to expand...

Hey, why the reference to someone who has no right of reply here?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top