What makes a preamp "better"?
Posted by: bec143 on 09 July 2003
Maybe there is an old thread to be directed to, but...
I have heard the differences between different preamps, and they are not subtle. What i don't understand is why this is the case when the role of the [reamp is just to get the source signal to the power amp and add volume and balance controls. Besides the obvious things like multiple inputs, why does a 252 best a 112, and what accounts for the vastly different expense?
Bruce
I have heard the differences between different preamps, and they are not subtle. What i don't understand is why this is the case when the role of the [reamp is just to get the source signal to the power amp and add volume and balance controls. Besides the obvious things like multiple inputs, why does a 252 best a 112, and what accounts for the vastly different expense?
Bruce
Posted on: 14 July 2003 by sideshowbob
quote:
to perceive an object as being descrete we have to nullify/negate the existence of all other objects for the duration of being conscious of that one object.
Steven, I bow to your knowledge of epistemology and cognitive psychology, fields in which you are clearly expert, but feel compelled to comment that if your perception works in this way, I'm not entirely sure you should be allowed to drive a car.
-- Ian *
* Who is, as it happens, an Hegelian
Posted on: 15 July 2003 by Steve Toy
quote:
Steven, I bow to your knowledge of epistemology and cognitive psychology, fields in which you are clearly expert, but feel compelled to comment that if your perception works in this way, I'm not entirely sure you should be allowed to drive a car.
I have been driving a car for 15 years, I have driven a taxi for eight of those years, and my licence is totally unblemished [touch wood].
I consider my thinking to be of philosophy and not psychology although there is a clear overlap betwen the two disciplines.
The brain, I suppose, works as a scanner with a very high sampling rate indeed. The thought processes I outline above (nullification) can work at a very rapid rate so that an overall picture can emerge of which we are then conscious...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 15 July 2003 by Minky
Posted on: 16 July 2003 by sideshowbob
quote:
I consider my thinking to be of philosophy and not psychology
You've been speculating about both in this thread, so I assumed you were equally expert in both. For how many years have you been studying philosophy, then? Which university? And what's your specialism?
-- Ian
Posted on: 16 July 2003 by Steve Toy
I am no expert in either philosophy or psychology, but I did touch upon phenomenology/existentialism/(post) structuralism when I read some of the works of Sartre, Foucault, Eco, Barthes, de Saussure etc for my degree ten years ago at the University of Wolverhampton.
It is not necessary to make any assumptions regarding my intellectual processes or the background behind them. I only ask that my views are taken at face value. I just wished to play Devil's Advocate to the notion that "life is analogue."
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 17 July 2003 at 03:37.]
It is not necessary to make any assumptions regarding my intellectual processes or the background behind them. I only ask that my views are taken at face value. I just wished to play Devil's Advocate to the notion that "life is analogue."
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 17 July 2003 at 03:37.]
Posted on: 16 July 2003 by paul99
This thread has deviated somewhat from the original theme about "what makes a pre-amp better" and I shall continue that deviation.
One can challenge the idea that "life is analogue" in another way.
Many years ago, as microprocessors were replacing analogue electronics in real-time control (control systems, like an auto-pilot or controllers for boilers, reactors, chemical processes and so on), I attended a course on the subject.
The first thing said at the first lecture was to discard the idea that the world is analogue, from now on think of it as digital.
In a digital world we are aware of the state of the world at regular intervals, the sampling period. We do not know what happens in between. There is a whole branch of maths for dealing with this (including the z-transform). I did all this years earlier at university but the significance of the maths was not so clear.
You might think that to control something in the real-world you need to sample it's state twice as fast as the highest frequency the system under control could, say, oscillate at - but no. Your observations of the system state can be far lower than that and yet your control system will be able to control the system being observed.
As you change the sample rate (the rate at which you see what the system is doing) the coefficients for the controller change to match the changed world-view (if you like) that the controller has. The controller neither knows nor cares what happens between the samples.
As I recall, later in the course we were divided into groups we were all given some sort of electro-mechanical thing to control. (I can't quite remember what it was but it had a motor and a pointer and this pointer needed to be kept aligned with a mark.)
Each group was given a different sample rate. Given the speed at which the motor could move, we all thought - no way is this going to work. But, of course, subject to our poor maths ability, the controllers did work.
I suppose that there must be a limit to the length of sample period but here my memory fails me.
Since then I have designed a few sampled data control systems (one with quite high accuracy), where a traditional view that the world is analogue would have suggested that if you only check the state at that interval, it could have done anything in the meantime.
So, if you want, you can view the world as digital, with your awareness of the world being based upon a series of observations with what happens in between being irrelevant.
My apologies to engineers or mathematicians who may have winced at the above, it was all so long ago and I haven't used this maths since my time as an engineer.
Regards,
Paul.
One can challenge the idea that "life is analogue" in another way.
Many years ago, as microprocessors were replacing analogue electronics in real-time control (control systems, like an auto-pilot or controllers for boilers, reactors, chemical processes and so on), I attended a course on the subject.
The first thing said at the first lecture was to discard the idea that the world is analogue, from now on think of it as digital.
In a digital world we are aware of the state of the world at regular intervals, the sampling period. We do not know what happens in between. There is a whole branch of maths for dealing with this (including the z-transform). I did all this years earlier at university but the significance of the maths was not so clear.
You might think that to control something in the real-world you need to sample it's state twice as fast as the highest frequency the system under control could, say, oscillate at - but no. Your observations of the system state can be far lower than that and yet your control system will be able to control the system being observed.
As you change the sample rate (the rate at which you see what the system is doing) the coefficients for the controller change to match the changed world-view (if you like) that the controller has. The controller neither knows nor cares what happens between the samples.
As I recall, later in the course we were divided into groups we were all given some sort of electro-mechanical thing to control. (I can't quite remember what it was but it had a motor and a pointer and this pointer needed to be kept aligned with a mark.)
Each group was given a different sample rate. Given the speed at which the motor could move, we all thought - no way is this going to work. But, of course, subject to our poor maths ability, the controllers did work.
I suppose that there must be a limit to the length of sample period but here my memory fails me.
Since then I have designed a few sampled data control systems (one with quite high accuracy), where a traditional view that the world is analogue would have suggested that if you only check the state at that interval, it could have done anything in the meantime.
So, if you want, you can view the world as digital, with your awareness of the world being based upon a series of observations with what happens in between being irrelevant.
My apologies to engineers or mathematicians who may have winced at the above, it was all so long ago and I haven't used this maths since my time as an engineer.
Regards,
Paul.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Minky
To add to the above, our perception of events moving "smoothly" is a bit like our perception of VDU or television. It only appears linear because the refresh rate matches or betters the sampling rate of our brain. Take a film of a VDU with a low frame rate and you find out the terrible truth - that what you thought was an unbroken line is actually a series of discreet pictures (like the frames of a cartoon). I remember a sci-fi short story on tele years ago that explained why people lose their keys and then find them exactly where they thought they had put them in the first place. Each moment is like a scene in a play with the set being meticulously assembled by men in white coats who's job it is to make sure that continuity is perfectly maintained. Of course once in a while one of the men in white forgets something before the next frame kicks in.
There are parts of the brain that if injured render the victim unable to differentiate between moving and still objects. In fact movement is perceived as a series of "stills" much like moving objects under strobe light. People with this condition find it difficult to know when to cross the road (because they can't judge how soon that car will arrive) and even have trouble pouring liquid into a glass because they can't anticipate when the glass will be full. If all that is broken in these people is a piece of extrapolation software, are we actually just carbon based digital processors ?
Fascinating stuff which goes absolutely nowhere near answering the original question. Or does it ?
There are parts of the brain that if injured render the victim unable to differentiate between moving and still objects. In fact movement is perceived as a series of "stills" much like moving objects under strobe light. People with this condition find it difficult to know when to cross the road (because they can't judge how soon that car will arrive) and even have trouble pouring liquid into a glass because they can't anticipate when the glass will be full. If all that is broken in these people is a piece of extrapolation software, are we actually just carbon based digital processors ?
Fascinating stuff which goes absolutely nowhere near answering the original question. Or does it ?
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by sideshowbob
quote:
I only ask that my views are taken at face value.
Steven, I am taking them at face value, and there's no demeaning going on, from me at least. It's just that the arguments seemed a bit neophyte, TBH. A talented first-year philosophy student would have you for breakfast. (No reflection on your intelligence, but philosophy is a discipline with pretty rigorous standards of argument, by definition, and needs to be studied properly.) Also, your remark that, "I consider my thinking to be of philosophy and not psychology although there is a clear overlap between the two disciplines", had a strong tone of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs about it, and irritated me.
-- Ian
[This message was edited by sideshowbob on THURSDAY 17 July 2003 at 09:14.]
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Tuan
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Matthews:
Paul
Its common knowledge that I am involved on an infrequent freelance basis helping to develop visual direction for naim. I have no direct financial benefit from promoting their electronics and would never dare to claim any input in terms of the performance of their product line.
Having said that I have been a naim user for approximately 18 years and always attempt to put across my honest and independent opinions regarding music and its reproduction. I never toe any party line and certainly never advertise or promote under the guise of a thread.
What I will say is that I know of no other company who put so much attention to detail in every aspect of their business. If this sounds like promotion then I'm sorry, it's just been my honest experience for the last five years.
Fair enough... However, for the asking prices of the 552 and the 500, people have lot of choice in the open market to buy excellent HiFi toys. Naim is NOT alone in the upper market. I think they gamble on the American market by judging on the new "Naim sound" that is dramatically different than the traditional sound that defines "mine is a Naim amp when you hear it even without seeing it". Can we still know if it is a "new generation" Naim amp that makes music without seeing the logo? It may sound like a small Mark Levinson for the Americans and that is what Naim want. They want to sell. That is ALL.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by paul99
I think that you can wear socks provided that they don't vibrate.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Steve Toy
quote:
"I consider my thinking to be of philosophy and not psychology although there is a clear overlap between the two disciplines", had a strong tone of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs about it, and irritated me.
It came in response to your trying to pin down my musings to one academic discipline or another, which I also found mildly irritating. I suppose my response was just a stock one.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by sideshowbob
quote:
It came in response to your trying to pin down my musings to one academic discipline or another
Steven, it was you who was insisting on the distinction, not me. You were speculating about both, that was my whole point, and what I said.
I really do give up this time.
-- Ian
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Steve Toy
Semantics
Well, having established that it isn't a cat you are not wrong.
There are a few more things you may need to nullify before you can conclude that it must be a car.
I wished to nullify the notion of my musings having any basis rooted within the disciplines of psychology. I came up with "philosophy" as a kind of deflection from this. Then you hit me with the rigours of philosophy, said how a first-year student of said discipline would somehow eat me for breakfast, and yet you didn't actually comment on the viewpoint itself. Ultimately you failed in turn to demonstrate how exactly the philosophy student would actually pull this off. I suggest you present a better argument.
Best Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 18 July 2003 at 03:51.]
quote:
There is a range of other possibilities you know. It could be described as a not-cat for instance.
Well, having established that it isn't a cat you are not wrong.
There are a few more things you may need to nullify before you can conclude that it must be a car.
quote:
Steven, it was you who was insisting on the distinction, not me.
I wished to nullify the notion of my musings having any basis rooted within the disciplines of psychology. I came up with "philosophy" as a kind of deflection from this. Then you hit me with the rigours of philosophy, said how a first-year student of said discipline would somehow eat me for breakfast, and yet you didn't actually comment on the viewpoint itself. Ultimately you failed in turn to demonstrate how exactly the philosophy student would actually pull this off. I suggest you present a better argument.
Best Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 18 July 2003 at 03:51.]
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Steve Toy
Evidence in essentialism
Remove the taxi and its driver from the equation, and the argument over the fallen tree lives to fight another day.
Regards,
Steve.
quote:
If a tree falls on a taxi cab, and nobody but the driver is there to witness it, did it ever really happen?
Remove the taxi and its driver from the equation, and the argument over the fallen tree lives to fight another day.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by Steve Toy
Ross,
Philosophy is tedious - tautological loops such as the notion of conscious of being conscious of being conscious ad nauseum is very tedious indeed. I apologise for getting bogged down in all of this, and with the samentics of it all like anyone else...
As for the "pseudo" prefix tag added to the label, what does one have to demonstrate in order or it to be removed?
Add a few "pseudo" letters after your name perhaps???
I suppose life is simultaneously analogous or numerical depending on your chosen point of departure at any given time.
I wouldn't say it was dangerous though - you can always shift your attention away rather than risk death by tedium.
Regards,
Steve.
Philosophy is tedious - tautological loops such as the notion of conscious of being conscious of being conscious ad nauseum is very tedious indeed. I apologise for getting bogged down in all of this, and with the samentics of it all like anyone else...
As for the "pseudo" prefix tag added to the label, what does one have to demonstrate in order or it to be removed?
Add a few "pseudo" letters after your name perhaps???
I suppose life is simultaneously analogous or numerical depending on your chosen point of departure at any given time.
I wouldn't say it was dangerous though - you can always shift your attention away rather than risk death by tedium.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by bec143
Death by tedium?
More like death by Toydium.....
Bruce
More like death by Toydium.....
Bruce
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Top Cat
For once I agree with Ross. This thread sucks, heh heh heh...
John
TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
John
TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Markus S
Richard,
while you're at it, why don't you move this thread to the Padded Cell, too?
Markus
while you're at it, why don't you move this thread to the Padded Cell, too?
Markus
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Richard Dane
Markus,
The way this thread is going, I'm sorely tempted...
Can anybody let me know whether we're still talking about Hi-fi?
Richard
The way this thread is going, I'm sorely tempted...
Can anybody let me know whether we're still talking about Hi-fi?
Richard
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dane:
Can anybody let me know whether we're still talking about Hi-fi?
Richard
i thought this thread was about Simon affirming his 552 purchase..
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Simon Matthews
Every time I play a bit of music my 552 does that for me.
But thank you oh so much for your concern.
But thank you oh so much for your concern.
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Simon Matthews
Marco, thanks for the concern but I'm not down.
The reason I'm not is that I am exactly two hours away from putting on the first tune of the evening. I'm not sure what it will be yet but I do know that it will sound absolutely fantastic.
The reason I'm not is that I am exactly two hours away from putting on the first tune of the evening. I'm not sure what it will be yet but I do know that it will sound absolutely fantastic.
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Steve Toy
A 552 is 552 cos it's not a 52 (or a 252.)
A 552 also sounds better than a 52 (or a 252.)
It has more clarity, and dynamics that have the ability to startle.
Why?
I care not.
Regards,
Steve.
A 552 also sounds better than a 52 (or a 252.)
It has more clarity, and dynamics that have the ability to startle.
Why?
I care not.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by garyi
nor do we.
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by herm
Hi Garyi,
you have to understand Mr Toy is on a kind of project these days to reposition himself as a man of taste, wit and philo-intellectual depth. Why or how, we don't know.
He doesn't exactly seem to be building on his strengths but why tell him? I seem to recall Toy's fiancée reads the Forum occasionally, and perhaps all he wants to do is show her he isn't dumb or fat either.
Herman
you have to understand Mr Toy is on a kind of project these days to reposition himself as a man of taste, wit and philo-intellectual depth. Why or how, we don't know.
He doesn't exactly seem to be building on his strengths but why tell him? I seem to recall Toy's fiancée reads the Forum occasionally, and perhaps all he wants to do is show her he isn't dumb or fat either.
Herman