Why not put the frivilous use of teh self assigned title Engineer...write up some business cards and letter heads and do business in Tx and many other states....see if you can pay teh fines when they decide to nail ya. Do a search on just one state Tx and the term Engineer, and how it's legal to use only under conditons like haveing the credentials. If you ain't got no engineering degree or PE certs, you ain't an engineer. go sign off on a projet with a phoney PE sticker, what kind of audio do they let you use in jail? But I forgot, this is audio related, it doesn't matter. TX says it's posible to be $1,000/day for using the term improperly on letter heads and any kind of business if you ain't no engineer. Try to see if they catch ya look into other states too.

you got a fairly new piece of junk too.

Why don't you ask XXXX why he considers himself a professional recording engineer? Why don't you get on his tail?

By the way DUP, who do you think designs the crappy consoles with op amps for the recording guys? Those same guys that Texas gave a license too. So what good is a license if they still can't design?

The piece that oscillates is SS DUP. It has a small amplitude HF oscillation in the hundreds of khz on the negative portion of the waveform. Any piece of good tube equipment would not have that problem.

Quote:
Actually to be called an ENGINEER, there certainly better be credentials and degrees attached, cus many states have laws regarding teh use of the term ENGINEER, Texas for one. You can't arbitrarly assingn yourself the title engineer, if you don't the paperwork from aschool etc that you do in fact have an engineering cert. Try it, it's like $1,000/day fine if they decide to enforce the law. Same with audio "pro" you better have the paperwork. If you attach engineer to your name PE etc. Most do. Full Sail is supposed to be one of the best in schools for such stuff.

Hey wait a minute here. I don't have an engineering degree yet I am employed by a major defense contractor as an electrical engineer. I am proud of the fact that I have not had my ability for free thought replaced by preprogramed input. The ability to recite information back verbatim on a test without understanding the concepts is something I have witnessed many times.

If your SS amp suffers from an oscillation it is poorly designed. As far as, quote:

Agreed
The work by Crowhurst was expanded on in 2003 by James Boyk and Gerald Jay Sussman.
They examined various configurations of FETS, BJTs and valves, using and not using feedback. In the case of push pull O/P stages, feedback was shown to reduce ALL orders of distortion.
In the case of a MOSFET, source feedback does indeed increase the number of spectral components. i.e. it's design specific.

Have a read:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf

page 49 chapt 137.1 RULES regarding the use of the term Engineer, engineering etc, in TX only I'm sure other's have similar RULES. Take a read.

Neither would a good SS piece. Junk is junk don't matter what it's made of. don't you know you can't make chicken soup from chicken shit? come on, that's physics 101

cyclebrain, look into the use of the terminology....even where I work they found out and where kinda shocked. They made changes, if the laws want to be enforced somewhere, it can be costly. If you don't have an engineering degree or other recognized papers you ain't no engineer, what a concept. If the term engineer can just be applied at will, why do schools issue engineering degrees only after you pass teh course? It takes a few years to do it too. Why not apply MD or PhD after your name? Same idea, why bother with credentials?

Quote:
The work by Crowhurst was expanded on in 2003 by James Boyk and Gerald Jay Sussman.
They examined various configurations of FETS, BJTs and valves, using and not using feedback. In the case of push pull O/P stages, feedback was shown to reduce ALL orders of distortion.
In the case of a MOSFET, source feedback does indeed increase the number of spectral components. i.e. it's design specific.

I wonder if that's the root cause of the anecdotal "MOSFET mist" that listeners comment on with such designs.

Quote:
Have a read:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf

Thank you. I will indeed do so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Congradulations cyclebrain. I know this doesn't occur very often in industry, and it takes alot of work. So nice job! All the best.

"If your SS amp suffers from an oscillation it is poorly designed. As far as, quote:

Interesting read Martin. Didn't read in depth, so I won't get into it but to ask what 6dj8 tube was used? The reason I ask this is because the distortion products vary with brand, even from year to year and can be substantial.

Keeping the plate voltage, grid, cathode and plate resistors constant, total HD can vary by a 10 to 1 ratio depending on the brand of tube.

But as I say, what I read was excellent with the parameters presented.

Thanks Martin.

Quote:
cyclebrain, look into the use of the terminology....even where I work they found out and where kinda shocked. They made changes, if the laws want to be enforced somewhere, it can be costly. If you don't have an engineering degree or other recognized papers you ain't no engineer, what a concept. If the term engineer can just be applied at will, why do schools issue engineering degrees only after you pass teh course? It takes a few years to do it too. Why not apply MD or PhD after your name? Same idea, why bother with credentials?

My employer gave me my job title not me. They are full aware of my credentials or lack of. From reading your posts here I'm sure that you appreciate the difference between being able to recite back data to pass a test and actually knowing how to usefully apply presented data. A title is just a fancy show piece. Sometimes earned, sometimes bought.
A couple of my favorite people are Mr. Honda (not a degreed engineer) and Smokey Yunick (not a degreed engineer). Both of these individuals had incredable engineering abilities.
By the way I recently got promoted to a Senior level engineer, without a schoolastic engineering degree and by the largest defense company too. I get the job done. Why discriminate against me because I don't belong to some club that all have the same piece of paper? I can't learn as much by reading the same material on my own?
Yea titles mean so much. Like Duke or Earl. One wouldn't dare use one of those titles without proper training.
Could you imagine the choas if just anybody started calling themself a Duck or an Earl? Next thing you know they would be designing audio cables.

Man it didn't take long to read about 2nd page, footnote 1...SLEW RATES!!! MATTER, no wonder teh great AVA stuff is so good. Super fast, linear STABLE, but he always makes sure SLEW RATES are out there like 800V/uS I think the latest stuff is OmegaStar EX (ckts I useing the SS amps) I think he gets that in the Ultra hybrids i use also (pre, and ultra phase inverters 2) Soooo, it looks like AVa is right there with page two, I'll keep reading, and see what else AVA does RIGHT, does it rigth, priced right, made right, what a deal!!! And what's in YOUR DEFECTIVE stuff, osscilations, not meeting written high priced specs? AVA meets, beats, and does it right. Made by mortals priced for mortals.

Major company or not, LAWYERS love to go after stuff like this. A place I deal with a lot, loves to call their sales people "sales engineers"....no such thing. Matter o' fact so did a company I worked for 2 decades ago. Beyond a major company #1 in many product lines, in the world #2 in the others. Just cus' they is giants, don't mean they know it all. It keeps lawyers employed. Put your employer ENGINEER designation ontop letterheads business cards, in Tx for one....Let's see your employer pay the fines, watch how soon you loose your title. My employer changed ours BEFORE when they found out about LAWS....Why not ask yoru employer HR and legal div to look into the rules about calling people engineers, when they are not. Specifically start with Texas LAWS, do a serch on the web. you maay even get a bonus for saving them troubles, if Tx ever wants to enforce their rules. I ain't making this up. DUP EsQ, PhD, PE MD. Mostly just a PUTZ degree. Why go to school and earn it, if you can just make it up? How bout' the big dig in Boston, maybe they had self accredited "engineers" signing off on that mess, killed only one so far with falling concrete massive roof sections. Watch what good lawyers do searching who to get, every aspect of acrediations will be suspect. Will you be next? No matter what YOU think, if you ain't got teh papers, you ain't what you think. Hell as simple as getting a dog or cat, it ain't a purebred if it ain't got no papers!!! Ells Island even had that.....WOPS...WithOut Papers.

My favorite are Dave Hafler, the Harley boys of yesteryear. How bout' Orville Gibson and Leo Fender..which where papered engineers? But i don't think they called themselves engineers either...that ain't the point of what people can do without teh papers. The point IS, if you claim to BE an ENGINEER, you better have the documents to satisfy the legal ramifications of lawsuits etc. None of those pioneers where trying to sell themselves as engineers, they where selling their inovative PRODUCTS. How bout' them phoney MD'S, are you gonna get treated by them? 60 Minutes years ago, had a story about one working at Ft. Dix N.J. claimed to be an MD, did some good work, BUT when something went wrong, where was his papers, he wound up in jail, when if he had PAPERS maybe would not had. It's your guess if and when PAPERS will matter.

Quote:
If your SS amp suffers from an oscillation it is poorly designed.

Martin,

I am surprised 301 let you get away with that statement...after all "poorly designed" isn't exactly specific.

BTW: SS gear sounds fine to me too (as it does to at least a billion others on this planet). When I was a kid a few TV's still had tubes - now none of them do. I can assure you that SS designs and the industry wide accepted used of negative feedback is not something you should lose sleep over. I think you know this. 25 years ago I designed and built amplifers for extremely precise scientific research equipment. We used extremely low noise op amps and circuitry with extremely high gains (for detecting low signal levels). Accuracy and stability was critical. It was tricky but there was never even a question that we might use a valve. In fact my professor would have probably failed me on my research thesis just for suggesting such a ridiculous idea...

I wanna see the original vacuum tube computer run Windows XP. Even the display technology has left vaccum tubes, CRT may finnaly be memory in about 10 years. things do move on, for most, maybe not for some. My silly putty is all gone too.

Quote:

Quote:
If your SS amp suffers from an oscillation it is poorly designed.

Martin,

I am surprised 301 let you get away with that statement...after all "poorly designed" isn't exactly specific.

BTW: SS gear sounds fine to me too (as it does to at least a billion others on this planet). When I was a kid a few TV's still had tubes - now none of them do. I can assure you that SS designs and the industry wide accepted used of negative feedback is not something you should lose sleep over. I think you know this. 25 years ago I designed and built amplifers for extremely precise scientific research equipment. We used extremely low noise op amps and circuitry with extremely high gains (for detecting low signal levels). Accuracy and stability was critical. It was tricky but there was never even a question that we might use a valve. In fact my professor would have probably failed me on my research thesis just for suggesting such a ridiculous idea...

Man, these subjects always get so tricky.

1) Logical appeals based on mass acceptance do not equate with proof of concept.

BSR was the most popular turntable maker, ever. Just because "a billion" people were satisfied does not make BSR de facto a good turntable, let alone the best solution for playing LP's.

The fact that the masses "are satisfied" with SS doesn't prove SS's Hi Fi bonafides. (Even though I agree that SS is just fine, I'm just saying...)

In terms of quality, Microsoft kind of sucks, yet billions are "satisfied."

So, appeals to popularity do not equal proof of quality.

2) This is a connaisseur's hobby.

Jug wine may satisfy the masses, but we're here to discuss the finer points of the stuff we appreciate. I don't care what satisfies the masses, they don't care about what I care about.

3) I bet if you had been trying an experiment about how trained listeners perceive sound, you would not have been tossed out of the lab for talking tubes.

Specific tools for specific jobs.

Pointing out that some lab experiment required the precision and low noise of SS gear for a narrow application neither proves its value fo Hi Fi, nor disproves tubed gear's value.

Heck, I wouldn't use tubed gear in my car, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't at home to listen to Margo Timmins massage my eardrums.

Cheers!

You want Margo Timmins massage your eardrums ?!?!?!?!?
Buddha,you are Ferengi!!! rotfl
Seriously,now.I wouldn't bother explaining to Dup such things.It's like thrwings eggs on a wall.

Nice post Buddha. Makes one wonder about the "scientific" community's use of "logic" in other areas.

Actually Buddha, by implication I

Hi Martin,

Since the oscillating frequency is so high, in the hundreds of khz (not mhz though), and only on the bottom portion of the negative waveform, I figure it is one of the following.

1) A transistor well out of spec
2) A bad capacitor that has a high ESR and needs replacing
3) Not designing for a wide enough variance using typical parts (assuming the part is within spec)
4) Possible lead misplacement causing to much coupling between wires and part(s). This one I kinda doubt.

Cheers

Hello 301
You may well indeed be right. Hope it doesn't cost too much!
Best of luck...
Martin

I'm not sure, but I think that I might have designed that amplifier. Seems all my amplifiers oscillate and all my oscillators don't. If only I had that degree.
I always get that feedback thing mixed up. Hope I don't get sued. Maybe if I didn't use any feedback I would be safe.
Anybody interested in an amplifier without any feedback?

Start putting PE after your name or some other misnomer, sign off on your work as such. Let's see how long it takes for it to bite you right in teh ass. Put PhD, why don'tcha? It's only letters that don't mean nutin'. And I have seen some pretty dopey PhD's...sure don't mean they are that good at what they do, but it does mean they Earned the title, and the title means they are it. Go find a pseudo DR. to treat ya, soem doctors don't know stuff either, even after schooling. Let's see how far you can push the non titled professionals. When it determines your health or maybe financial well being. Sign off on some job that if not done properly will cause injury etc. go wire someones house for a fee, fake em out that you are an electrical contractor in states that require it to be licensed, watch how the state comes a knockin'. Go get legal advise on someone posing as a lawyer, matter o' fact one did around here years ago....he faked it for quite a few years, UNTIL...something didn't go right for one of his clients, they called up teh state bureau that regulates them, now he is in jail, fined hundreds of thousands of $$$$, cus' they said, no such person listed as a licensed schooled lawyer. Go for it, fake your Engineering credentials, what expertise are ya gonna claim, let's see how long you can do it.....come on, you said you know as much as a certified, degreed one does....

This really seems to bother you and I don't have a problem with that, but I'm suprised that of all people, you. Always the first to question the status quo.
The company decieded my position not me and I don't use engineer on business cards or e-mail signatures.
As a side note, I didn't get an engineering degree because my father is a E.E. but while being very smart, lacked many things that I thought to be intuitive. I incorrectly assumed that structured schooling killed an individuals creativity and intuition. After being around many other engineers I know that I was completely wrong about that.
I guess a sample of one doesn't paint a very clear picture.

Tiring of ME? I have put myself on "ignore"...it's a TRIP. I am fighting myself, that's what happens when the medication wears off.

You ASSumed? Hmmmm, I thought teh DOCTRINE here was not to ASSume, if you didn't try it, don't use intuition, or reasonable logic, like Demagnetizing PLASTIC will be audible, or stopping vibrations on AC wall devices is audible, or for that matter, a piece of magic wire, will somehow change teh sound of a Cd player or amp? Maybe you shoulda' went and got edumacated, then it woulda' leanred ya' that wires and plastic don't do what scammers are claiming to be able to happen. I don't think Les Paul or Leo Fender where degreed or papered engineers either, but look at what they managed to accomplish. But i don't think i ever seen them claim to be ones either, neither was Thomas Edison. My issue is putting that title with your name, when you ain't got no papers, you are therefore NOT AKC registered are ya? GM probably has lotsa papered engineers, looks like they are either stifled or all the dumb ones went there. And I doubt that just cus' YOU don't have a paper, that you are somehow so much better at doing intuitive things better than ones with papers. A big dope is a big dope papered or not. Was Dave Hafler or Henry Kloss papered engineers? But I bet some of the famous ones that built some cool bridges over teh years where, like golden Gate andVarazano, or TappenZee How bout Lincoln and Holland tunnel? They didn't cut corners did they? No papers, not an engineer, simple. Now Ver' are yur' PAPERS?

Hey Buddha -

I think that your posts are really reasonable. From my perspective, the main thing that bothers me is when companies make claims which are clearly false (like the vacuum claim) and people jump to their defense. I think that many people would be more willing to have an open mind if these companies were subject to more scrutiny and people weren't criticized when they questioned these claims.

I also don't think its an objectivist vs subjectivist issue. For me the main issue is the lack of empirical testing. Lets contrast the last two reviews in stereophile of cables: Tara and Nordost. Tara is clearly engaging in questionable ad practices and pseudoscience mumbo. It doesn't take a degree to figure this out. They should be called on this and their claims should be subject to a LOT of scrutiny by the audio press and by consumers. They have always been shady, this latest nonsense should not surprise anyone.

However, if you look on the Nordost website, they claim that their cables are technically superior and offer a number of claims about induction, etc being the cause of this. They offer a no bs explanation of their products advantages and give technical specs, which any legit company dealing with electronics should do. Why not test them like all other equipment is tested and see if they outperform less expensive brands? As a consumer I would like to know if their claims hold up, just as I enjoy JA testing other pieces of equipment.

What bothers me isn't if people hear a difference, nor the possibility that price may get you a difference, its when companies are defended who are clearly engaging in bs (Tara) and when manufacturers' claims are not tested when the manufacturers are lauding their product's superiority based on testable claims (Nordost).

I also noticed a poster questioning the scientific community's use of "logic". I should point out that this is the same community whose flawed "logic" brought the world capacitors, transistors, and the theory of electricity and magnetism on which all of the products we enjoy so much (and particularly their fine tuning) are based. Its called empiricism, not dogmatism or objectivism, and without it you'd still be listening to someone singing through a megaphone in a concert hall....

As the popularity of switching amps increases and as more designers begin to study the effects of cables while using these amps, I think we will get the unintended byproduct of understanding the relationship between the audio signal and the wire it travels down.

It's not the subjectivists who have a problem with the science community, it's the science community that has a problem with the subjectivists hearing things that they aren't capable of explaining...yet.

I have faith in the science community being able to explain this at some point. They did finally come to the conclusion that the world was round, but it took awhile.

Quote:
As the popularity of switching amps increases and as more designers begin to study the effects of cables while using these amps, I think we will get the unintended byproduct of understanding the relationship between the audio signal and the wire it travels down.

It's not the subjectivists who have a problem with the science community, it's the science community that has a problem with the subjectivists hearing things that they aren't capable of explaining...yet.

I have faith in the science community being able to explain this at some point. They did finally come to the conclusion that the world was round, but it took awhile.

Bengrbm, your example of Tara vs. Nordost is superlative.

It dovetails interestingly with Monty's post...

Quote Monty: "It's not the subjectivists who have a problem with the science community, it's the science community that has a problem with the subjectivists hearing things that they aren't capable of explaining...yet.

Monty, the big problem with that is that what you say gives carte blanche to the subjectivists to make any claim they like, with a blanket reply of "Well, science just can't measure what I hear."

The objectivist part of me recoils when the subjectivist part of me is given free reign to make any claim at all without any basis in reality.

The science community, rather than the "objectivist" DBT community, seems to have more problems with unadulterated bullshitting rather than claims that certain components may differ.

The science community would be fine with someone saying that different components may react differently to each other, but when the science community calls B.S. on the claim that the atmospheric conditions at 12,000 feet elevation are equivalent to a vacuum, they are merely trying to keep us somewhat grounded in reality.

If we don't draw the subjectivist line somewhere, then we are faced with a hobby where any manufacturer would be allowed to make any claim, and anyone who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes would be brushed aside as a heathen "objectivist" in the church of subjectivism.

The real answer is obviously somewhere between the two camps. Therefore, we should continue to listen and to measure with open ears. We have to be eternally vigilant regarding definitive claims made by either camp.

I'm not suggesting that the differences in cables aren't grounded in solid science. The problem is that the science community has determined that these differences aren't audible.

I have no problem calling attention to silly claims that have no basis is reality and I have an enormous amount of respect for the engineering that goes into the stuff I enjoy. The problem that I have is that too many in the objectivist camp are basing their opinions on a subject that hasn't been fully studied, despite the capabilities to do so if they so desired.

These new switching amps seem to be particularly sensitive to cables as is often indicated by people with experience using them. TAS recently had a mess of them in for auditioning and devoted an issue to the discussion of the technology.

It's pretty obvious that this new technology is going to be exploited to a far greater degree than it is now. Once the environmentalists start blessing the technology as an eco-friendly way to save energy then some of the high end types are going to throw a lot of energy into making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

That's when somebody is going to make a serious effort into discovering why cables effect these things so much.

It would seem the obvious question that should come to mind after determining that cables can effect how a system sounds is in asking why? Too many in the objectivist camp are married to the determination that cables don't make any difference and therefore never reach the question of why?

I have far more respect for someone who incorrectly reaches conclusions from asking the why than I do for people who refuse to ask the question in the first place. "I don't know why" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

It would seem to me that given almost every respectable reviewer has heard differences in cables and much ink has been spilled in writing about these differences that to dismiss these claims based on what somebody thinks they know about the technology is exhibiting a rather uninquisitive nature that doesn't advance science and understanding one bit.

That's why I say the problem is in the objectivist camp. Nobody likes seeing the exploitation of something that is very real into absurd claims that are only partly based in fact. This certainly isn't unique to the cable industry or the high end audio sector.

OK, I'm on board with ya, Monty..

We definitely walk a fine line with cable claims; and iconoclasm is overly prevalent on both sides of the debate.

I don't think the scientific community has a definite opinion about cables and painting this as science v. audiophiles is off target. I think that most of the reason why there aren't a lot of papers on the subject is that its not high on a lot of people's lists of important academic topics. The idea that the scientific community is jumping on the notion that AC signal propagation can possibly be improved is false, its a strawman. What I am objecting to is claims made by cable manufacturers which are patently and clearly false, and having people get defensive when that is pointed out and not having that as a part of a consumer magazine's review. And I do think its more prevalent here than in other industries, and for cables in particular.

Decent scientists aren't mocking the claim that cables are improvable, they are making fun of people who buy $15K cables from someone who is clearly misrepresenting their product. Would any of you step on a TARA labs airplane?

The second problem I had is that Nordost claims to have sane reasons for why their cables are better, but the cables are never tested. Their webiste makes claims about EXACTLY why their cables are better, they claim they DO understand it, but instead the 'phile review compares it to the mystery of Stradivarius violins. We should get a better level of discussion.

I am not claiming that cables are not improvable or that its impossible that they can sound better. I certainly don't have the fortune necessary to listen to every cable maker out there. I am specificly objecting to the tone of the two previous 'phile reviews, and each of them for different reasons. I for one would have loved to have seen a test of Nordost products and find out if their specs hold up and how they compare. Tara, on the other hand, should have been laughed out of the magazine before they had a chance to embarass anyone else along with themselves.

How's this for a bargin? I'll admit that its possible some high-end cables may sound better if some others will admit that when someone pays $15K on cables that maybe, just maybe, they might be psychologically conditioned to hearing a difference.

BTW, on a friendlier note, I did not come on this board just to rant - I came hear because I wanted to get a starter nice turntable and I do respect many people's opinions on these and other topics. Last year when I posted for a while I was looking for a USB DAC so I am not trolling for an argument...

Tara marakets vacuum and air, claims BOTH are superior, depends which month it is? When is Nitrogen filled? Maybe Argon, like insulated windows? Or maybe a wire special gas, which of course will not be known anywhere outside of audio nonsense. Audio gas. hmmm, I think audio gas already exists.......Yes, I know I said I was done, but......

Both "subjectivists" and "objectivists" have to justify their conclusions. For the former, often the conclusions offered are not tested in any other way than long-term listening and impressions. Both groups contribute to furthering audio understanding if the information gathered can be related from one camp to another. I give a spcific example and perhaps a possible challenge.

In the December issue of Stereophile, there was a review of the Audio Research Reference 3 amplifier. On page 111, first column, second sentence, the reviewer wrote "The soft green display can be adjusted...(Turning off the display does result in marginally better sound.)". This claim is made without presenting any other corrobation. How do we know that it's really marginally better and audible? Well, since the display is on the amplifier, and it can be switched on or off, this is a great opportunity to test that subjective impression under SBT or DBT conditions.

Too often, any tweaks or improvements are on one sample of the equipment, without a control sample to compare with. This amplifier display example is a rare opportunity to see if the subjective conclusion and objective test of such are correlated. Any thoughts about this from forum members?

I think that when people try to say "CABLE A IS BETTER THAN CABLE B", or any variation on that theme, they are missing an essential truth and over-simplifying what is going on.

It has been my experience that when connecting certain pieces of equipment, cables make only subtle differences or none at all. On the other hand, I have experienced situations where connecting a certain piece of gear to another particular piece of gear is so sensitive to the (unbalanced) cables used, that the sound clearly varies from badly degraded to very good depending on which cable is used. In these situations the cable used makes so much difference that it is immediately apparent to anyone listening, and there ain't no doubt about it (DUP, we know you disagree, so spare us your rant and go listen to your Bose radio in a cave).

The problem seems to be that some equipment is simply relatively stable in its circuit design when interfaced with another particular piece of gear, and the capacitance and inductance variations from cable to cable have little effect.

Other combinations, however, seem less stable, and distortion is caused by the complex network formed by the output characteristics of the source equipment, the cable's own characteristics, and the input characteristics of the equipment receiving the signal.

So you really should be asking "which cable produces the least distortion when connecting component A to component B", rather than trying to say that a particular cable is best in ANY situation; it doesn't work that way, in my experience.

As to those who say that cables NEVER make any difference (DUP comes to mind); I can only say that what I have heard clearly many times is that certain cables clearly produce audible distortion when connecting certain equipment to certain other equpiment. And if it is my imagination, then why does my wife come in from the next room and ask "what are you doing?...that really sounds awful!" when certain bad-sounding cable/equipment combinations are connected (I think her ears are more sensitive to this than most people's).

My THEORY on all this is that brief ultrasonic oscillations or "ringing" in the interface circuit composed of the cable and equipment cause distortion by driving the input circuit receiving the signal into non-linear operation for very brief intervals (xx microseconds).

I think that this problem would be eliminated to a large degree if manufacturers would place filters at each input to limit the frequency response of the equpiment to 20 KHZ. Some manufacturers advertise response to 100 KHZ or higher; I think this is silly, and simply opens the door for the kind of harmful oscillations that can cause distortion.

One thing is for certain, at least in my mind; substansial distortion does occur when certain cables connect certain pieces of equipment; the sound is audbly degraded. This has been verified in my presence many times by several listeners at once, with no dissention whatsoever.

This does not occur, by the way, with BALANCED interconnects; I have never heard any variation in sound quality between one balanced interconnect and another. The reasons why balanced interconnects are immune from the problems associated with unbalanced ones are so obvious to anyone with a sound technical background that there is no point in going into it here.

Yeah, if the display on a multi thousand dollar pre amp is causing the sound to degrade, since this nudnick said it margainlly improved the sound....THEN Looks like Audio Research better eitehr take the display out of the pre amp, or make one that doesn't degrade the sound. Now why didn't one of the Audio Research designers catch the sound degrading display? I bet the paint finish on it was causing a degradation too? Maybe if he buffed off the factory finish and used a tweak paint it would improve the performance? Why on earth with Audio Research miss such an easily obvious problem with a multi thousnad unit? Shame, they need to hire this reviewer as their test ears? And to think a REFERENCE pre amp, degraded by a display!!! Eeesssh, I though Audio Research knew how to make good stuff. I'll stick to AVA, no sound degrading displays, see, AVA knows i guess, leave out the displays. How come McIntosh with their cool BLUE displays don't effect teh sound? Maybe it's audio BLUE, Audio Research needs the correct color!!!!!

I have the LS-26 preamp, which has almost the same display as the Reference 3, and I have not heard any difference in sound quality regardless of display brightness level or display completely off. The unit is VERY quiet, even at the highest gain levels.

The high-frequency signals that refresh the display data could conceivably cause some noise that might be a issue, but I strongly suspect that AR took great pains to use separate power supplies and isolate them to prevent this. As far as I can tell, it is a non-issue (at least for the LS-26...the Reference 3 does have slightly different power supplies...).

As for AVA, their sound quality is 3rd-rate to start with, so they could put in all sorts of displays and no one could hear the difference; it would still sound like 3rd-rate equipment; no problem at all.

But, hey; I understand where you are coming from. When what you have is the best you can afford, it's only natural to try to trash the stuff you can't afford. No point in admitting to yourself that there is better equipment out there when you can't have it anyway.

The simple fact is that AVA's best preamp does not sound as good as the AR LS2-B, which I had for years. The LS-16 is a BIG step up in sonic purity from the LS2-B, and the LS-26 is a HUGE step up in sonic purity from the 16.

So on a scale of 1 to 10, anything from AVA is a 3 or a 4 at best, the LS-16 is about a 7, and the LS-26 is a 10 or something very close to it. With AVA equipment you are SOOOOOO far from really hearing the potential in your recordings that you are a mile out in left field when you open your mouth.

Hey, hey, hey. Just a reminder to everyone:
Every individual has the right to his or her own personal path to sonic nirvana.

Public service announcement over. Play ball!

Is it possible that an extremely quiet gear (low noise floor) can reveal a slight difference when the display is on or off when music is playing? That is what I read in the review when the reviwer claims that there is a marginally better sound with the display off.

My post was to show that if a reviwer has made such a claim in print, and because the equipment is amenable to testing that claim in either a single- or double-blind fashion, then why not see if the subjective claim correlates with SBT or DBT testing?

If under blind testing the reviewer cannot distinguish whether the display is on or off, what would you think? If he could distinguish between the two states, what now? How many other can or cannot tell the difference?

Neither result necessarily points to a problem with Audio Research or the amplifier. We must be careful not to accuse others in haste (e.g. DUP, although I do understand your reaction) without fully understanding the facts. I don't have the complete facts to judge at this time. I think it interesting that a subjective impression, in this case, can be blind tested easily, if one wants to.

Seems to me an INSULT to Audio Research, when the reviewer claims the display ruins the sound. the reveiwer is saying AR is not so good for the price they get? When a display design is wrong if it causes an AUDIBLE change? Hmmm, AR and AVA are both from MN...that means they are great. Natural cryo treaments no exctra charge. -17F recently. Now we all know NATURAL freezing is better than articially induced freeze. You know, those non audio grade freezers and stuff. When nature freezes, it's just , well, more natural, riiiiight. any nudnick claiming AVA is 3 rate is, well......enaomred with grossly over priced under performing stuff. Paying a lot for a unit where the displays causes audible decay, and changing a piece of wire between components, what kind of crap you listening to anyway? Properly desinged stuff ain't got these foibles. Ya got any AR stuff capable of 500Kz response 800V/uS slew, 1200+ watts RMS in mono... at like .01% distortion AND priced for mortals? I love how when grossly overpriced stuff fails to live up to it's BS, the owners become very agressive against stuff that is 1/3 the price and 1000% better in operaation. Goes to show money can't buy happiness, only more agrivation, when they pay too much and get much less. I hope the reviewer explains how he heard teh effects of the display, either he is wrong or AR is in their designs. And did you know AR started out redoing Dyna stuff!!! It all begins at teh feet of Dave Hafler, cool. Even AVA began with redoing Dyna stuff and he evolved into his own materful designs, as did AR, but AR went to the price extremes, without the benefit of price contraints, better balue in AVA. AR is good stuff just teh dollar ratio ain't there, performance /dollar. AVA beats em all, so ya have money left over for some music to play on it. AR, McIntosh, cool stuff, just that AVA beats em all in VALUE, and equal performance, sometimes better, for less money. The results of great design work, heir to the original Hafler concepts, control prices through better designs, no fluff, just performance

Did DUP say something intelligible there?

I guess not...same old spluttering, no content.

I guess that is a way for the deaf to compensate.

I

You can hear this? MapleShadey says in their latest book of nonsense, that short cables sound worse than longer cables....and they will of course sell you cellophane wrapped wires. What if the wires are lifted off a carpet, demaged with Furutech, and run though a bad electron catcher from that other nudnick Bybeeeeee, electron catcher dude? Shouldn't THAT make it all better? Nope, needs vacuum insulated from Tara, , noooo, is is a reptile from AQ, or was it a river noooo, a mountain from AQ....with all these problems all these "solutions" to these "problems", when do you have time to listen to anything, since ya's always finding all these horrible PROBLEMS. and I thought just using some good stuff made music, but nooooooo, now we got all these problems with wires, connectors, and displays. AM radio never had this problem, turn it on and listen to The Cuz' Cousin Brucie, eeeeeeeehhh, now on Sirius. Hey Cuz'.

Huh? Spluttering? did you just invent that wurd?