Ivigone, your approach is only partially accurate, but it is good start. There can be real differences, even if the waveforms look about the same, and virtual sameness when some signals appear different. For example, a simple phase shifter might change a transient to something completely different looking, yet sound similar or even the same. There is a reason for this.
However, working on a single amp, and trying to make it ACCURATELY pass pulses, is a good thing to strive for. Also, some amps, may misbehave with single pulses. Let us find out which ones they are, if we can find them.
My experience with amp design is much deeper, because that is what I do for a living, and I have to compete with 'crazy people' like Charles Hansen, who WILL do it right, even if I don't, and then I will look bad in the reviews, by comparison.
Most here are not really in competition with the goal of making an 'ideal' of an amplifier, so their approach will be much more relaxed.
However, working on a single amp, and trying to make it ACCURATELY pass pulses, is a good thing to strive for. Also, some amps, may misbehave with single pulses. Let us find out which ones they are, if we can find them.
My experience with amp design is much deeper, because that is what I do for a living, and I have to compete with 'crazy people' like Charles Hansen, who WILL do it right, even if I don't, and then I will look bad in the reviews, by comparison.
Most here are not really in competition with the goal of making an 'ideal' of an amplifier, so their approach will be much more relaxed.
In order:
1. I'm not surprised. But it's 2011, not 1978.
2. Yes.
3. To see what your hearing tells you, absent other cues.
4. No.
5. No. Did you read Pano's and my posts?
6. Understanding the audibility of phase in sound reproduction is pretty critical, at least to those of us who care about sound.
7. No.
Have you tried doing the Hawksford test to see if your ears are sensitive to midrange phase shifts? Or does that fall into your category of "can't tell just by ear"?
Well SY, I doubt that you have read a hi fi magazine like 'The Absolute Sound' or 'Stereophile' since 1978. The new company that I am working with, 'Constellation', is on the cover for TAS this month, and 'Stereophile' is giving me a full review of my IC (gosh) based phono preamp, the JC-3, next month. That is how far behind I am.
Personally I would not think that a typical computer electronics would be good enough to run listening tests, and I stand by my opinion. I know that my MAC is sadly lacking.
Personally I would not think that a typical computer electronics would be good enough to run listening tests, and I stand by my opinion. I know that my MAC is sadly lacking.
Last edited:
That depends on what you mean by "typical computer electronics." With a decent sound card, several of us could hear differences. How about you? Do you trust your ears? Aren't you curious?
John,
I cannot compete with you and, maybe, with all other people that supply this thread. My deep experience as DIY's is with voltage amplifying devices: preamps and power amps for electrostatic loudspeakers. My experience with power amps for dynamic speakers is more limited.
I had always success with this approach (at least to my ears). What I want it's to kow if others people have done similar experiences and what they found; nothing more. Your suggestions on the matter are highly appreciated, considering your commercial success.
I don't want to make a device to accurately pass pulses: I want my system to do that.
Two devices that accurately pass pulses, when put in cascade, in most cases, don't give as a result a system that accurately pass pulses.
Computer Audio and JC
John:
We know you are a curmudgeon, and that can be helpful, but your knowledge of what results can be had from computer audio is sadly lacking. Perhaps we can educate you at some point.
Your Mac would not really be up to the requirements for good computer audio, its just a little too old. However even a Mac mini can give exceptional performance with the right help. And I may be able to arrange a short loan of a decent player, although they seem to sell faster than we can assemble them.
John:
We know you are a curmudgeon, and that can be helpful, but your knowledge of what results can be had from computer audio is sadly lacking. Perhaps we can educate you at some point.
Your Mac would not really be up to the requirements for good computer audio, its just a little too old. However even a Mac mini can give exceptional performance with the right help. And I may be able to arrange a short loan of a decent player, although they seem to sell faster than we can assemble them.
Given this, your approach makes a lot more sense to me. It's difficult enough to drive an electrostat well that even a graphic approach, with some experience in interpretation, might help getting a handle on difficult things like dynamic stability and driving reactive loads.
All good fortune,
Chris
You devil!
Quite right.
That was going to be the main theme when posting the results of my tests. Impulse is good, and now impulse is easy. But due to the overwhelming lack of interest, I did not publish.The impulse is an excellent way to test. It's just that you were going about it the hard way. And up until now the hard was was all that most of us had. Also some folks (not you) thought that impulses would show things that swept sine would not. That's wrong, as far as I can tell. Now with some of the new software like HOLMImpulse, it has gotten much easier. Just run sweeps or MLS and look at the resulting impulse, FR and phase. E-Z.
I am very thankful to all who have done the heavy math lifting to make all of this easier for us.
Hi,
Because life is too short and I am not stupid enough to be misguided into a meaningless test by a challenge...
As you may. And likely, if I set up a test like that it would be including certain deliberate deception to illustrate just how much such tests in themselves effect the perception... So your call to boycott my test would likely be as sensible as the one I made.
But I will no doubt be able to find a suitable occasion where and when to issue such challenge and have even you (especially you) take it and prove my point.
Right now I have other things to do...
Ciao T
Because life is too short and I am not stupid enough to be misguided into a meaningless test by a challenge...
As you may. And likely, if I set up a test like that it would be including certain deliberate deception to illustrate just how much such tests in themselves effect the perception... So your call to boycott my test would likely be as sensible as the one I made.
But I will no doubt be able to find a suitable occasion where and when to issue such challenge and have even you (especially you) take it and prove my point.
Right now I have other things to do...
Ciao T
Hi,
Correct. In other words, the test pressure made you "hear thing" that did not exist and not hear things that did, disregardless of the actual presence of them.
Sufficiently trained and experienced (specifically in ABX testing) and level minded (e.g. not holding excessively serious views on anything) listeners given enough time may do better, significantly better.
For example Tony Faulker (apparently) trained himself to be exceptional at blind tests. So far he has "aced" every test. Once he participated in a blind test regarding audio watermarking. In the circumstances (I was "press" at the time and so invited as well) I could not hear ANY differences even sighted (environment too noisy, bad sound system etc), yet he managed 100% accurate identification.
And with blind testing these flaws in perception may still cause you to hear differences where non existed and hence add a strong random factor to the test. Just because the test is blind does not mean your perception does not play tricks on you.
Yet the very test often acts to obscure.
It is purely observational. Whenever someone issues a "challenge" inclusing blind tests I smell, as we say in german a "Bauernfaenger" (peasant catcher), no matter if it is the blind "Pepsi Challenge" or anything else. I would have expected more from Jan, but such is the way of the world.
Actually not only was my test blind, I was rather dismayed that two types of capacitors that I considered identical to all intents and treated as such showed significant and identifiable differences in blind testing. It did teach me not to make assumptions based on what may seem reasonable but instead to perform the actual tests to make sure (and to do it blind so prejudices cannot influence it).
Ciao T
Correct. In other words, the test pressure made you "hear thing" that did not exist and not hear things that did, disregardless of the actual presence of them.
Sufficiently trained and experienced (specifically in ABX testing) and level minded (e.g. not holding excessively serious views on anything) listeners given enough time may do better, significantly better.
For example Tony Faulker (apparently) trained himself to be exceptional at blind tests. So far he has "aced" every test. Once he participated in a blind test regarding audio watermarking. In the circumstances (I was "press" at the time and so invited as well) I could not hear ANY differences even sighted (environment too noisy, bad sound system etc), yet he managed 100% accurate identification.
And with blind testing these flaws in perception may still cause you to hear differences where non existed and hence add a strong random factor to the test. Just because the test is blind does not mean your perception does not play tricks on you.
Yet the very test often acts to obscure.
It is purely observational. Whenever someone issues a "challenge" inclusing blind tests I smell, as we say in german a "Bauernfaenger" (peasant catcher), no matter if it is the blind "Pepsi Challenge" or anything else. I would have expected more from Jan, but such is the way of the world.
Actually not only was my test blind, I was rather dismayed that two types of capacitors that I considered identical to all intents and treated as such showed significant and identifiable differences in blind testing. It did teach me not to make assumptions based on what may seem reasonable but instead to perform the actual tests to make sure (and to do it blind so prejudices cannot influence it).
Ciao T
Are you trying to imply that somehow a PC is better than a Mac for shuttling data to a DAC?
I think that MY Mac is fairly lousy as an audio reproducer. Perhaps a newer Mac would be better. Many other people use sound boards or somesuch in their PC's. I could understand that a special added circuit into a PC 'might' sound better than average, but I work with MUCH more exotic stuff, and find it flawed.
Like Thorsten says, I will NOT be pulled into a test that is not going to tell me about how to make better audio equipment. And if and when ever I do such tests, I will use better reproduction equipment than my computer.
Like Thorsten says, I will NOT be pulled into a test that is not going to tell me about how to make better audio equipment. And if and when ever I do such tests, I will use better reproduction equipment than my computer.
You are right, John, but ... it depends from the point of view.
In my vision:
System = reproduction chain;
device = CD player, turntable, cartridge, phono preamp, line preamp, power amp, loudspeakers, interconnects, etc.
From my point of view, connecting a preamp and a power amp it's connecting devices. For the designer of the amp, the devices are the Bjts, Fets, resistors, capacitors, etc.
When I put together my reproduction chain, I'm the designer of my reproduction system and I have to use "macro" devices (preamp, amp, etc.) that allow to get the best transient response from my system.
I'm convinced that the best results can be reached only with the design of the complete reproduction system; as you know, you cannot have success by choosing only the best Bjt for the design of your successful power amp: you have to take care of the complete design.
Your customers are the designers of their listening system.
Last edited:
This:Auraliti Home or this: Sirius or this: Cygnus or this http://bryston.com/pdfs/09/Bryston_BDP1_LITERATURE.pdf
These all have a computer as the core for playing audio. In many respects these and the similar efforts by others are as good as audio reproduction can get today. You can get very good results with a carefully tuned PC and an external USB audio interface or a Mac Mini with the same. I love playing with spinning platters and reels but I must be realistic and move on if the results are more accurate. I'm not interested in making something pretty if its not in the music. Its seems a lot of other people are starting to see the same future.
I agree Demian, but do others here understand that there is more to it than just a computer core? What do you mean by 'carefully tuned' for example? I have heard highly tweaked versions of one of your older designs and found very good, better than most anything else in my experience. What gets me down is the ANALOG portion that the music has to go through, more than the digital.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.