Hi folks, is the so called holographic imaging with many tube amplifiers an artifact? With solid state one only hears "holographic imaging" if that is in the recording, but with many tube amps you can hear it all the time. So solid state fails in this department? Or are those tube amps not telling the truth?
It seems to me that Roger_ Paul has the time to answer posts and make certain statements but when asked to answer Atmasphere's questions he states he is busy.He also contradicts himself several times. Tvad is correct as he usually is ,If you enjoy what your listening to that is all that counts. I wonder if TBG is smiling,I would think Audiofeil is.
In this forum the 'emporer's new clothes' is inappropriate, I think. It's more the the 'emporer's old clothes'. If you've been here for any time you've seen it before, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's just that some claims are so far fetched that they become self defeating. Personally I enjoy threads on reasonance control with components and room acoustics. Some solid concerns taken to an absurd level just to sell products to the eager audiophile with a real or percieved problem. Generic observations and advise given to cure a very specific problem which require equally specific solutions. Almost as much as the Sunday funnies.
But that is probably half the fun of the hobby. Playing with tweaks and ancillary equipment. If folks want to believe these claims and recieve benefits from these beliefs, good on them. Let them go in peace. They could actually be right! :-)
But when a manufacturer/designer comes forward to explain or defend his product he does so at his own peril. Roger Paul is not the first one, nor will he be the last. At least when designers of 'mystical' equipment do come forward and fail to provide an intelligent explaination of their product's function, they do much to remove all doubt from inquiring minds about the likelihood that the product is going to be found to be metorious. And if the designer can't adequately explain his design and it's the audience's dullness that is responsible, well - what did he expect to find here anyways, a bunch of astrophysicists (rocket scientists)? :-)
Newbee: nice rational statement. By the way, I noticed on your system page that you don't list your cables, cable lifters, power cord, outlets, or interconnects. Does this provide a window into your views on the great necessity of spending thousands of dollars on these items? By the way, I have Home Depot stock outlets, the power cords that came with my equipment, and Belden wire making up my cables. I have no cable lifters to keep the speaker wire off the floor although I am seeking to hire some if they work cheap and don't need health benefits.
“And if the designer can't adequately explain his design and it's the audience's dullness that is responsible, well - what did he expect to find here anyways, a bunch of astrophysicists (rocket scientists)? “
Newbee,
You know sometimes it may be detrimental to be an actual rocket scientist and trying to solve a problem. Edison handed off the task of figuring out the volume of air space inside his new spherical light bulb to someone who would work at great length with all the formulas and mathematics necessary to determine the answer. After a while Edison simply picked up the light bulb and turned it upside-down in a container of water. The amount of displaced water was equal to the volume of air space. Problem solved. Wow – was this man a genius? No just using common sense.
Remember gravity was here way before Isaac Newton pointed it out in the 1600Â’s (even though Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticized for introducing "occult agencies" into science.) Luckily it all worked out.
Atmasphere,
I promise I will try to address you questions in a manor that will be satisfactory to you.
Musicnoise, I didn't choose to list stuff I can't endorse beyond its application to my system and my sensitivities/sensibilities. So I took a pass on all wires and tweaks. Far too subjective for me. :-)
For my listed stuff I can give you a reasonable description of how it sounds to me heard with associated components, including tubes, with multiple speakers and electronics, and most certainly over my Bolero's the only thing I really prize. But wires and tweaks is just too too much. Hint - George designed most, but not all, of it.
Oh, BTW, I can indorse for the atheist heavy guage Belden PC's and Canare 4s11 speaker cable. Nothing esoteric, SOTA, or expensive there. Just great benchmark stuff for modest systems. Oh, one more thing, I use Trolls for cable risers. Keeps them out of mischief. :-)
Ok – here we go – lets start with your first comment. I will try to use straight simple answers.
“09-26-08: Atmasphere Roger, 1/100th of a db? Really? So if the change in pitch cannot be detected by **musical instrument** tuning devices (which are quite sensitive, much more so that any frequency counter I've seen), it follows that it cannot also be heard by the human ear, but you say it can. How do you square your apparently contradictory statement?”
Do you realize what you have just concluded? If you can’t measure it – you can’t hear it. Any audiophile worth his salt will tell you that measurements and sound don’t always add up. You say that if it cannot be detected by [equipment] then… “it follows that it cannot also be heard by the human ear”
Do you really believe that? You would rank the human ear made by God in the same category as man-made test equipment?
NEXT - ”The **amplifier** is changing gain? What is the mechanism for that?”
ItÂ’s called distortion. Simple non-linearityÂ’s that cause the amplification factor to deviate from a constant ideal value.
1) How have you measured this effect to prove or disprove your hypothesis and add what outcomes does it suggest?
I donÂ’t.
2)Given that a change in the speed of the amplifier has produce no measurable result, how were you able to test your hypothesis?
I listen.
3)For a given change in gain, say 20 db, over a period of 1/2 second how much change in pitch will be measured?
CanÂ’t measure it remember. But I do use a simple binary logic. Smeared = bad Clear = good
4)How do you measure Doppler effect in an amplifier?
Sorry - Still canÂ’t measure it.
5)What is the unit of measure?
Fractions of a degree / fractions of a db.
6)What test equipment do you use for this?
Nobody makes equipment to test this.
7)How much DE is reduced by your circuit?
Significant amounts – verifiable via listening.
8)IME again, I have found that the measurable propagation delay in an amplifier circuit does not change with the input level. How do you square this with your hypothesis?
Actually with a fixed or constant input level applied the propagation delay will vary as signal goes through its 360 range. What your are reading with your test equipment is a worthless average.
9)Does your hypothesis support exceptions or does it predict that the experience of perspective is universal?
Changes in perspective were not my intention regarding the concert hall analogy – just the relative distance from the stage based on the 3 seating positions and the necessity to move between them to alter the pitch.
10)Since when listening I am usually seated, why exactly should I care if there is Doppler effect if I move?
You will not hear / notice Doppler by simply moving around in your living room unless you are running VERY fast. Again the reference to the concert hall was to illustrate changes in gain you would implement via your volume control (rapidly) the physical equivalent would be a very brief “jump" from seat to seat at which time you would hear a change in pitch. (Doppler).
11)In a real life situation, would you not also experience Doppler?
We experience it all the time.
12)It seems to me that you would want to preserve the Doppler effects of real life music. true/false?
True – the same as you would want to preserve harmonic overtones that originate from the instruments. --
Good point but why are some things allowed to go without any demand for due diligence - most cables "technology" for that matter - that was kind of what I meant to imply but you are right to correct me.
Unsound, I am not surprised. This whole discussion is meaningless of you evaluate amplifiers based on talk and specs. We could just narrow it down to my amplifier is 0.002 % and yours is 0.02 % and therefore mine is 10 times better. Of course it does not work this way or we would all be buying our gear from catalogs.
I have never nor will I ever design a “black box” gadget that will intentionally tamper with the true embedded phase relationships for the purpose of faking the apparent depth, stage or placement of objects within a given “scene”.
I know that I am unconventional when it comes to designing audio gear. After all conventional thinking will always give you conventional results. I think it is also safe to say that I am the only designer in the audio market that has taken such a radical approach to new amplification techniques. I know that I am the only one who has gone after the ROOT cause for distortion. IOW fixing the problem at the SOURCE not after it has already been allowed to exit the circuit. Oh, did I mention that I have been after this for nearly 2 decades? And, much like Edison I can show you 900 circuits that didn’t work. I have lived in 4 homes in the past 20 years and every one had a laboratory. Call me stubborn – but I knew before I got anywhere close to finding the culprit that it was there all along.
Newsflash – like it or not Doppler **is** responsible for ALL distortion byproducts in amplifiers. Someday I will have more patience to take you through the process an inch at a time.
If you don’t think an amplifier can electronically change the “pitch” of a signal – how do you account for 2khz energy leaving a circuit fed by 1khz signal?
I guess what I’m saying is you build ‘em your way and I’ll build ‘em my way. Ultimately it is in the ear of the beholder. Let the free market decide.
Roger, you may or may not have discovered an interesting phenemonon. I am not convinced that you have made such a discovery by the case you have presented. I am even less convinced that you have developed a suitable cure, and that just might be the crux of it for me. I do look foward to auditioning the H-Cat.
Are we talking about time induced distortion (TID)?
Last time I heard about TID was in the manual for the Mission 777 amp of the 80's. That designer attacked the problem with an abundant power supply, local feedback instead of global, very wide open bandwidth and a slew rate that has only been bettered since in OTL and possibly some switching amps. Possibly, the best manual ever. Wish I made a copy.
That amp was ahead of it's time and incredibly dynamic but didn't come near the detail of modern amps, probably due to the evolution of parts.
It also reminds me of the difference between redbook CD vs SACD and DVD-A. There are time issues there that are not directly related to jitter or sampling rates.
Anyway, despite the inevitable obtuse answers, there is room for an open mind.
I've read many posts where requests have been made to explain cable "technology", so I don't agree that it's been given a pass
Yes but there is always an army of followers out there ready to jump to the defense of even the most dubious scientific claims for amazing differences between cables - (where no electrical science has gone before - cryogenic treatments - you name it - the wackier the cable theory the better it would seem!)
Roger, obviously you have spent no time with these musical instrument tuners. I have. They are so sensitive that they can show variation in pitch that is really hard to hear. The one I have is a rack mount unit and can show a deviation in pitch of one whole note over nearly that entire width. Its when you get to the center that its hard to hear what its telling you.
It is a fact that some people hear pitch better than others, but from what you are saying, none of this has any bearing on your 'phenomena'.
So: we still have an unquantifiable phenomena, no math to support its existence (whereas there is math to support the existance of anything else real in audio). On this point I should point out that as a manufacturer I have heard plenty that did not seem to show up on the 'scope- until I got a better scope that is... and while I agree that test equipment comes well short of what we hear, it is only because it is measuring the wrong things, not because those things can't be measured! They all do, after all, exist within the medium of electronics.
So it can't be measured, no math, no proofs of hypothesis nor any sought, if I get the previous posts, the pitch variation so slight as to be well below audibility, therefore the 'gain variation' caused by an amplifier's distortion is also too slight to be audible or measurable (since in any amplifier the gain is something we **do** measure)... conceded by a comment about 100th of a db (or less), and apparently, other than listening, no other way to explain that this is the right hypothesis. IOW, because an effect is heard, therefore it **must** be Doppler Effect! -and can't possibly be anything else...
Occam's Razor is still suggesting a simpler explanation: the whole thing is a made up story and the actual truth of the matter is something far simpler. For example I know that slight tonal enhancement at certain frequencies can cause the image to jump out, and we are talking here about 'Doppler Effect sensors' that are sensitive to a '100th of a db', yet the effect cannot be measured by any test equipment- but it can by the 'special' sensors! So I will point to this as another glaring contradiction.
If it were me, and in the face of the Occam's Razor, the amazingly far more complex explanation I knew to be the right one, I would have hooked these 'detectors' up to some sort of device to measure their output (they are affecting the circuitry in the audio path anyway, so they have an output...). This has not happened, and yet is the blatantly obvious thing to have been done a long time ago, and I think the explanation for why that has not happened is also obvious.
09-28-08: Tvad - “As in the case of the H-Cat's "Doppler Correcting" circuitry, the lack of measurements has always been a sticking point.”
Tvad,
Can you tell me the difference between a standard fuse and an Isoclean fuse? (besides more than $30) The answer is – one sounds good the other sounds fantastic. It is a sonic or acoustic recognition of superior performance. But how can this be? You surely cannot measure any difference electrically.
How about AVM (Anti Vibration Magic) paint? Simply applying it to transformers and wires and other components makes a HUGE difference sonically. How can this be? Nobody can measure it so you must be wasting your money. But behold – a not so subtle transformation of an existing audio component into something very special. Is it real or imagined? Actually it is real.
The reason these things work is because they operate at microscopic levels. IOW they take care of the really small issues that can have huge sonic effects on the outcome. Much like the microscopic phase errors that I have observed in amplifiers that cannot be measured but have a profound impact on the acoustic performance.
My work has been in the area of the microscopic to nanoscopic regions of amplifiers. This is why it is called Holographic (Cloning) Amplifier Technology. I deal with the structural integrity (shape) if a signal at levels that can go to 100 db below the noise floor. The Wavefront Timing Control is designed to make adjustments in velocity using circuitry that operates in parts per billion.
These are things that your average designer has not “tinkered with” nor do they have a clue as to where to begin.
09-28-08: Audiofeil “The market decided on Edsel, New Coke, Betamax, etc.”
Audiofeil, Were these all the brands that you have carried?
Thank you for a civil response. I honestly donÂ’t know what the answer is regarding the issue of having to provide proof that something works other than just listening to the results. The fact is that I have been able to accomplish a great deal of work that has been done virtually in the dark (thanks to the inability of test equipment to point to the problem). I can attribute this only to my decision years ago to follow a theory I came up with that associated what I was hearing to what I understood to be the actions of the amplifier circuit I was listening to.
The subtle misplacement of objects (in my sonic image) seemed to be caused by very slight alterations in phase but enough to matter when “projected” over a large area (stage). I seemed to have locked on to this concept that this was the mechanism for a lack of pinpoint focus that would be able to discern the difference between background singers as separate individuals. Their exact placement in the “projection” was totally reliant on the ability of the amplifier to pass the signal including the tiniest phase information needed to reconstruct the vector-based acoustic image. The simple act of triangulating the apparent location of objects would easily be scattered by a circuit that was not velocity stabilized. You would hear a general location for a given object but you could not pinpoint it as you would in real life.
The difference between listening to a real performance in front of you and an electronically reproduced performance is the medium. One is AIR and the other is AIR stored in an electrical format. As I have tried to explain – if you tamper with the electrical format before you convert it back to acoustic output. You have essentially tampered with the “stored” air medium. In this case any change in electrical velocity is proportional to changes in the “stored” air velocity. You therefore get the sensation that the sound objects in the reconstructed “projection” are moving slightly toward or away from you. This is recognized by the listener as “out of focus” or “bloated” but the proper technical term is Doppler interference.
Well, you go incommunicado for four days and a good deal happens. I have had the advantage of hearing at least 7 stages of the development of Roger's capability to "tighten up" Doppler shifts. While this trip has been expensive and often irritating, where I am now in terms of great realism in reproduced music is something I will never regret having taken this long path. Roger's theory has proven correct in my experience.
All that I can really attest to is that Roger has told me he increased a tighter clamp on the signal by tighter Doppler correction, what I hear is greatly improved in its realism. Many times I have thought certainly there could be no further improvement only to be proven wrong later.
I do know that Roger has leased test equipment to assess the benefits of his improvements only to see nothing in the measurements but obvious benefits in what you hear. I have always thought that it is ridiculous to suggest that if instruments don't measure it that it doesn't exist. What it indicates is the sensitivity of the ear. I grant that we can be deceived, but typically we are not, and thankfully so as we would not have survived in this dangerous world.
I have been largely responsible for "awakening" Roger to AVM and IsoClean fuses as I am always tweaking and sometimes with success. If some don't hear the benefits of these tweaks, it is of no concern to me, but Roger has.
I really think that I merely suggested that if one really wants to hear a holographic image you needed to LISTEN to the H-Cat amp especially with the H-Cat line stage in front of it with its WTC set correctly.
If you don't like what you hear, I am sorry you don't share my experience.
One further thought. I would challenge any of you to defend in theory and in measurement what you judge to be a superior amp or the one you own. And please don't say it is low in THD, or worse yet the lowest in THD! I have heard amps with low THD versus those with somewhat higher distortion. None of the lowest were very distinguished and would get my money.
Last year at the RMAF Stereophile gave seminars on amps showing the Boulder had quite low THD and reacted well to loads put on it. Another unnamed amp did poorly on THD. I innocently asked whether the unnamed amp's designer thought THD was a design concern. Everyone looked at me as thought I was profane. I left the room as no one was interested in sound.
“The Doppler detectors used in H-CAT require close to 200db of gain.” Huh, huh…… that’s an amplification factor of 100000000000. On a 1 V scale you are talking about a tenth of a nano-volt to produce a 1 Volt output and typical outputs. And you obviously only require a micro fraction of a volt for correction right? This is very interesting stuff indeed.
Everyone is entitled, at least here in the U.S.A., to the opportunity to earn a buck and you certainly are no different. But please give your audience a little more credit as some of us are educated enough to see right through your convoluted explanations and deceiving use of the English and pseudo-scientific descriptive language.
This is not a condemnation on your design and its sonic benefits but rather on the charlatan like marketing and communication practices.
I'm not surprised that Norm finds the H-Cat's processing appealing, as I have used/tried the same "process" in my reference system. "Multi-Tap Delay" circuits have been around since the 70's; there's nothing new here. Sorry to burst your bubble but this sham has gone on far too long in my honest opinion!
If I'm off base here than please explain your breakthrough (without devolving the proprietary details of course) in scientific terms commonly used for communication and explanation of acoustic or psychoacoustic phenomena in terms of Physics and Electrical Engineering in audio design.
Again, I believe that Multi-Tap Delay processors" are valid in their psychoacoustic effects and enhancements but I can not respect your convoluted explanations; simply state that it's a "Proprietary Process" and offer no explanation as others have suggested; rather than keep trying to swirl and convolute pseudo-scientific gibberish in a science-fiction type of way; please give some of us some credit as some of us not only possesses advance degrees in Physics but also in electrical engineering; and understand a thing or two about Spatial Audio and Psychoacoustic processing.
Is your process patented? Is it "patent pending"? I would like to see if you have submitted your breakthrough to the patent office; if you have then please send me the number as I would like to review it. I run across many "patent pending" statements in my business only to find out that it was never submitted nor was it ever intended to be submitted. Not for legal or financial reasons but rather for lacking any new technical discovery or breaking new ground.
You know how the old saying goes.... "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......"
By the way, the million dollar question...... Just to play along with you in your theoretical world......How do you correct and compensate for something that you can not measure????? It would seem to me that a circuit smart enough to compensate for these so call velocity, I mean "Doppler Effect" errors would need some sort of a "sense" circuit with predefined threshold triggers..... But then again maybe IÂ’m just being logical and scientific about this whole matter!!!!!!
It is a fact that some people hear pitch better than others, but from what you are saying, none of this has any bearing on your 'phenomena'.
Yes but it is also a fact that we ALL hear pitch or frequencies more accurately than just about anything else (in the midrange of course)
We are sensitive to amplitude with a threshold of about 10%.
We are sensitive to pitch (frequency) at a threshold of about 0.2%.
Fortunately most equipment (other than a TT or analog tape) is always way way more accurate than 0.2% in frequency.
It has occured to me, however, that doppler effects coud be a real problem for those who like to listen to music on a high speed unicycle, which probably explains why NO clowns can be audiophiles even if audiophiles can sometimes be clowns...like me ;-)
"How do you correct and compensate for something that you can not measure????? It would seem to me that a circuit smart enough to compensate for these so call velocity, I mean "Doppler Effect" errors would need some sort of a "sense" circuit with predefined threshold triggers....."
Rebi is right. I went from a McIntosh 7270 amp hooked to a Carver C-1 Preamp with the hologram generator built in. I also had a graphic eq, parametric eq, spatial enhancer, dbx range expander, bbe sonic max, and other signal processors. I sold everything and now have a Cary V12R amp hooked to a Cary SLP98P preamp. I bought a used Carver C-9 generator last week because it was the only thing I really missed after going to tubes. You have to set the speakers up correctly, but to me the sound is addicting after hearing it.
The only additional processing I use these days is DBX for dynamic range enhancement on oocasion. When I use it, I believe its generally due to dynamic range deficiencies in the recording compared to live sound rather than anything missing with my equipment.
I also added a tube DAC recently and would agree that it does add to the system's natural "holography".
“I bought a used Carver C-9 generator last week because it was the only thing I really missed after going to tubes.”
”The only additional processing I use these days is DBX for dynamic range enhancement on occasion. When I use it, I believe its generally due to dynamic range deficiencies in the recording compared to live sound rather than anything missing with my equipment.”
Your kidding right?
Here I am being crucified for allegedly creating an enhancement circuit to generate some kind of fake image. And you guys a sitting back with a living room full of crap and have the audacity to point a finger at my lifes work and say ah ha! Its just a black box with a resister wrapped in aluminum foil! We got him now!
IÂ’m beginning to think that the only sane people reading this thread are the ones who donÂ’t post but are nonetheless entertained by the squabbling.
All I tried to do is share some insight with fellow music lovers but its obvious that you will never be able to accept the “fix” for Doppler interference if you can’t accept that the problem is Doppler to start with.
If there is even a chance that I ‘m correct in what I have tried to share with you, think about the ramifications. To the audiophile - its good news. To the competition – it’s a sad day in Mudville.
Maybe, but I'm not trying to sell anybody anything so I'm the only one who has to live with my crap.
Also, your innovation is a lot more expensive than my crap and what my crap does and how it does it is well documented by the vendors so you can take it or leave it for what it is.
Sorry - I didnÂ’t mean to imply that you (and others) have crap for a system Its just stunning to hear what people would accept and legitimize as ok to add to your system when these are the biggest offenders of purity. My design is focused on achieving the highest purity and resolution by simply removing distortion. It adds absolutely zero to the original source.
I have never talked down to anyoneÂ’s designs. I even respect Ralph and his work. I have taken a different approach and a different path. Along the way I have only met with more conformation that I was headed in the right direction.
sometimes the issue of holographic imaging is on the issue of room acoustics itself. Properly treated room can make speakers have holographic imaging be is solid state or tubes.
Shadorne, I know that Roger has the most sensitive measurements and has told me the reveal no difference with different corrections but that he and later I and others clearly have. Again I think your faith in measurement is unfounded or you are measuring something that is not relevant. It is hard to see how frequency would not be important, but when you are measuring one frequency you are not measuring music. Perhaps it is the context of multiple notes that is where the benefit is.
I again ask all of you who suspect Roger is a charlatan to defend using your logic why your most preferred amp is superior. I bet none of you do more than listen. Perhaps you defensive amp designers have pet theories, which you might also defend.
Tvad, are you speaking of my discussion, if one can call it that, with Feil? I would think that it is obvious that I would like nothing more than to have no further discussions with him. If you are talking about the challenges to Roger Paul that suggests they know more about what he is doing than he does, then I must suggest that salvos must be fired in response to salvos.
Tvad is right, let us move one. This leads to nothing and to nobodies benefit. Ralph can offer explanations, which are well founded in current scientific terms how his gear will sound and why. Roger cannot, which does not necessarily mean that he is wrong, but he is certainly out of the mainstream. Although we are all familiar with certain vendors of aural snake oil, who sometimes use terminology fairly close to his, this does not by a long shot mean that he belongs to that group. Besides he is right to maintain, that the performance of good rigs goes far beyond of what can be measured. It it legitimate for Ttg to like what he likes, just as it is legitimate for Bill not to like it. He has been outspoken and caustic about his dislikes on many threads, he is not the only one to do so. It is equally legitimate for Roger to defend his point of view and to propogate his wares as a side effect. As long as we cannot hear his stuff in our rigs, we cannot really form an opinion. What I do think however, from reading what Roger says about the sonic benefits of his devices, that a well set up rig will achieve pretty much the same holography. I have for example with good software not the least difficulty in discerning single voices, be it in a big classical chorus work or -much easier -background singers in a jazz piece. Whatever, the proof, as always, lies in the listening and as long as somebody really neutral has not listend to this thing (that counts out Bill and Tbg (: ) and Roger cannot come up with an explanation in more currently accepted terms, I feel we could move on and put that CAT back behind the oven.
Detlof, save for your committment to "current scientific terms," I cannot help but agree that listening yourself is the only real way to tell. We don't really know whether Ralph has a handle on what is best in design or whether he is hidebound by conventional wisdom. Personally I have never heard any amplifier that equals the H-Cat, although a friend with the H-Cat tells me that the much more expensive Lindemann does and then some.
Roger need not "come up with an explanation in more currently accepted terms," anymore than Ralph needs to explain why his amp is preferable to many others. Basically, currently accepted terms, are insufficient to account for why some amps sound better. Even Ralph, I would assume, would not say that it is THD as he prefers tube amps with higher THD.
If you make a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door, regardless of whether you can explain it is "currently accepted term."
As I first stated, you are doing yourselves a disservice if you don't take advantage of getting a listen to these H-Cat products. I would welcome anyone to come down and hear mine.
Tbg, I would submit, that there is nothing in my post for you to infer, that I am committed to "current scientific terms". You don't know what I am committed to, because I have not said it. What I am committed to here however is simply that we stop beating a dead horse. Don't you think, that by now all has been said and opinions have been formed? As Tvad has suggested, please let us move on......
Detlof, it is perhaps rashly a dead horse. You chose the words you used, so I perhaps inferred what you said. Roger is painted too broadly with the brush of not explaining what he has come up with and others have not adequately explained, even using currently acceptable terms why some amps sound better. The losers are those who believe that the H-Cat is not worth a listen.
Bear in mind that this is a posting on achieving holographic sound images. It has become, however, the typical measurement is all versus sound is all confrontation that so often underlies discussions here and on AudioAsylum. It will always be a dead horse.
Tbg just to clarify some points, you are right, I'm not a fan of the THD spec. I feel that it does not matter how much distortion an amp or preamp makes **so long as those distortions are not found objectionable to the human ear**. By the same token I feel that it matters *a lot* about the distortions that the ear *does* care about. IOW its all about the Rules of Human Hearing, which I think are the most important things in audio- everything comes from that. For more information see
The debate about 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' which has been emerging on this thread has been an aspect of the Voltage vs Power Paradigms. You might think I am objectivist due to the way I have been challenging Roger, but I feel the Rules of Human Hearing are what are important, and not trying to make an amp or preamp conform to ideals that only exist on paper.
What we are talking about here is that there can be specs on paper that don't matter to the human ear- the old argument about how you can hear things but not quantify them. What I have found in the investigation of the paradigms is that all that is really happing is that we are simply not measuring the things that are important. If we did, the specs on paper would tell us how a product would sound. Its really that simple. The point is- one way or another, it really is all measurable if you know what to look for and do not limit your investigation to the blinders of the Voltage Paradigm.
The same is true with Roger. He could *easily* measure what he is talking about. After all, did he not devise his Doppler Effect detectors? They are, according to his website, able to correct the behavior of his circuit to eliminate or substantially reduce the phenomena. If they are able to modify the operation of his preamp, then they are also a tool for measurement. Where I see his arguments failing is that anyone in possession of such devices would be *acutely* aware of this fact. That he maintains that the effect is *not* measurable: Occam's Razor then suggests that these 'detectors' do not actually exist.
I can understand Roger continuing this discord.After all he is financially involved.What I don't understand is why Tbg now feels the need to continue. Personally I am partial to Lamm,Shindo and dehavilland electronics.I'm sure there are many that would disagree with me.If others thought these MFG's claims were off base so be it.Whatever turns you on. Guys you all have systems that you enjoy.GO AND LISTEN TO IT.
What I don't understand is why H-CAT doesn't have the audiophile community beating a path to its door (not that it isn't a great piece of gear, I don't know, I have never heard it). I don't have any idea what Ralph measures or doesn't measure, but I do know that his gear is bought by many, that most owners love them and are extremely brand loyal, and that he has been successfully running his business for many years, which makes me think that he's on to something. I will, however go listen to the H-CAT if it is at RMAF and couldn't care less what is being measured or not, I'll just listen. I don't think "theory" marketing makes for long term success in the audio market, though it might get you a surge of interest that might or might not be sustained once enough people of have owned and expreienced the equipment -- then it better sound good no matter what your theory is.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
