Shouldn't it be obvious? Especially for the power amp stageThe bit in the ellipsis is where you actually say the thing I start every lecture with
If it's providing an inverse correction for some other aspect of if the replay chain (eg room?) then it's probably excusable
However if the content creator has made a bodge of the process, then also maybe a little repair work is justifiable. Digitally remastered CDs anyone? If the producer/engineer has to have another go at mastering the original work, why can't I? Admittedly, if it is justifiable it shouldn't be on a one-size-fits-all.
Whilst their justifications may be wrong, their reasons may be right. To quote from your paper http://www.hypex.nl/docs/papers/AES123BP.pdf slide 74 - compromises of digital filters
"sibilants in choral music, wind and string instruments smear across the whole stereo image"
this is exactly what I've hated about cd for many years. Without the appropriate correction/reproduction in the source device, many of us profile alternative ways of removing such an inaccuracy
Most things that audio mystics consider out of the realm of mere engineering are actually firmly within it. For instance, what loudspeakers need to do other than a flat frequency response to sound right is something we know a lot more about than what the hand waving crowd would give objectivists credit for. Also, the main reason why people think measurements don't cover auditory experience is because they use the argument to ignore measurements, or to discourage themselves from properly measuring. That's a fairly circular stance. For instance they'll use the argument to promote amplifiers that are clearly deficient and then they'll use the fact that these amplifiers all sound differently to reinforce their premise.
I think the only serious discussion we can have is "how good is good enough". StigEriks comments on the Ncore's performance in the bass section of an active system is an example. Another matter that isn't entirely cleared up yet is which kinds of auditory experience lend themselves to which double-blind test format. You need double blind tests to prevent false positives but how to prevent false negatives? Too many people swear by ABX, for instance, even though you can conceive of many more equally valid test formats. I'm absolutely convinced that ABX is the best for determining, for instance, audibility or frequency response and pitch, but I doubt that it is the most sensitive method for distortion.
Indeed. The important thing is that every botched job is botched in a different way and the repair needed is a different one. Someone who tries to heal all of his patients by giving them exactly the same treatment is called a witch doctor or more contemporarily a homeopath or a chiropractor.
I fully agree that you would want to remove such an inaccuracy. Crucially, you do not do so by adding an unrelated new inaccuracy which happens what valveologists propose when confronted with a CD with an aliasing problem. You can ameliorate the fuzzy stereo image of an insufficiently filtered digital recording by attenuating the frequency range where most of the problem is, but not by adding second harmonic distortion. I am fully in favour of fixing problems, and this is not in the least diminished by the fact that I do not agree with all the nostrums people wish to throw at them.
Every specific problem has a specific cure. If there is no plausible link between the cure and the problem you're trying to solve, it's not going to work. If a better converter lays bare a distortion problem elsewhere, a bad converter won't fix it.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you actually meant by that....?
For me nothing is ever "good enough"... when something better comes along I want to have it. And that led me to bying six Ncore amps...
Most of us (Bruno included) would have thought that the NCores don't offer any real advantage over UCDs when used at the bass section of an active loudspeaker and still you report they do.
Likewise, we would expect any improvement on the NCores to be insignificant in terms of perceived sound quality, especially in a domestic listening environment.
Still a test VS. an amp that measures even better (say an ExtremA) might show this improvement is in fact audible.
I do not listen in a domestic environment, I have a well-tuned dedicated listening room, lucky me.
Well ... when the Ncore measures better than UcD, why would that be audible only in the midrange and treble, and not in the bass?
I'm familiar with your system/room.
The point stands. There is a threshold at which you think there should be no reason to improve even further but still an improvement is audible.
The point stands. There is a threshold at which you think there should be no reason to improve even further but still an improvement is audible.
I do not listen in a domestic environment, I have a well-tuned dedicated listening room, lucky me.
Well ... when the Ncore measures better than UcD, why would that be audible only in the midrange and treble, and not in the bass?
Stig-Erik, how low do your bass modules go that you have the nCores on? I take they are not subwoofers?
The woofers go to 20 Hz -3 dB.
Being dipoles and placed at very short distance from the listening position, they do sound very "direct" with little room reverb. My room is also treated so that I have less than 0,3 s decay all the way down to 20 Hz. I think all this makes it easier to hear improvements in source signal and amp quality.
Being dipoles and placed at very short distance from the listening position, they do sound very "direct" with little room reverb. My room is also treated so that I have less than 0,3 s decay all the way down to 20 Hz. I think all this makes it easier to hear improvements in source signal and amp quality.
Simple: that it changes the answer to the question "how good is good enough" for subwoofers. I was explaining that the things we measure are by and large good indicators of sound quality (lack of colouration) but that the point of diminishing returns is not always well established.
I want to build either a 7-channel or 5-channel amp for my home theater. Is there a single power supply that would suit 5 or 7 NC400's, at least for driving 8 ohm loads, without any difference in sound quality when powered with the SMPS600? I see on the webshop the SMPS3k, SMPS1200A700, and SMPS1200A400.
I could also build monoblocks, but the SMPS600 seems way overkill. I read through the thread and saw Bruno's response about using the SMPS400, but I do not understand what the affects of idling losses are...
I could also build monoblocks, but the SMPS600 seems way overkill. I read through the thread and saw Bruno's response about using the SMPS400, but I do not understand what the affects of idling losses are...
Seems that I have missed this info somewhere in the 600 pages of info but, what are the 3 potentiometers for ?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Mine looks like a pile of junk!
Picture, picture, picture!
Any idea on exclosure? I'm looking for two small and descent mono pieces!
This thread has to be the most random **** off topic thread on the site, but also the most informative ! I just wanted to say thanks to Bruno for coming out with an ncore for us DIY guys. Bruno you will save me a ton of money when I start gearing up for my nearly cost no object HT next year. I plan to do 7 channels of ncore and 2-3x channels of the 2kw UCD for subs. Going to be using some Danley speakers to round out the theater .... now i just need to buy a house to hold all this year
- Status
- Not open for further replies.