Hi,The topic is interesting. I agree on many points with Boscoe, market decides the path for development, certainly facilitated by ignorance and balls disclosed for convenience in all these years. If I have to develop a true high-end amplifier, I do not consider your source, CD or other digital type. Also it seems that everything is focused on thd or other measures based on sinusoidal, right where the human ear is not selective, leaving out much more important parameters (which we use in order of "recognition" of a sound. a practical example can be: we recognize a snare even if you put a lot of tone. if you want to create an amplifier very loyal, the most important parameter is the velocity. this should not be considered as a function of the maximum reproducible frequency (eg. 20Khz) but in relation to transients(and on natural intermodulation of it), to this is added the linearity. I see all those that develop with discrete amp with extreme ease to 600 1000W, and I think, why not try to create an amp with good snr but with 500Khz or 1Mhz of bw? this would help to understand the semiconductor to be used, (a need to select them), and circuitry to use.
regards
regards
I have no doubt, this is only the smallest problem to be solved.
Even if BW is not frequency response.
Sure. That's why the "think outside the box".
No, its not the only thing. Two different amps with the same THD figures can sound different with non-reactive load. So how this figure is achieved is important. Same output signal can have different slew rate, different amount of feedback and correction, etc.
How about "massaging" the signal in the hope to get closer to the idealized sine wave input? May be we should all go with class-D amps after all?
That's the point. Two speaker boxes, even is expensive, and the recording techniques, can never duplicate the real sound. So, who is pretending they can make a high fidelity system by doing one or a few things to the amp?
My requirement is simple (and I put the burden more to the speaker than amp): I want to see that a good singer sings better than a bad singer. I want to see that a good musician play better music than the average. I want to see that expensive piano sounds better than cheap ones.
Jan is correct though in response to this...
Being hifi is about being true to the original signal. If you don't like what "hifi" sounds like then the blame is not to be put on the low distortion system, but on the recording.
If you tweaked your system, through the clever matching of non "hifi" pieces of equipment, so that it sounds good with X recording, who's to say that it's going to sound good with Y? You see reviewers putting systems together and they say it excels with rock but sounds somewhat uninviting with girl + guitar type music, this in my opinion is a very flawed way of doing things. Build a low distortion and very neutral system, then add in a box of tricks (DSP/tone controls/effects processor) so that you can alter the sound so that the system can sounds good with all recordings, regardless of what the engineer thought was a good idea.
Being hifi is about being true to the original signal. If you don't like what "hifi" sounds like then the blame is not to be put on the low distortion system, but on the recording.
If you tweaked your system, through the clever matching of non "hifi" pieces of equipment, so that it sounds good with X recording, who's to say that it's going to sound good with Y? You see reviewers putting systems together and they say it excels with rock but sounds somewhat uninviting with girl + guitar type music, this in my opinion is a very flawed way of doing things. Build a low distortion and very neutral system, then add in a box of tricks (DSP/tone controls/effects processor) so that you can alter the sound so that the system can sounds good with all recordings, regardless of what the engineer thought was a good idea.
BTW, can you list/rank 5 DIY amplifiers with the least distortion here in DIY Audio? I want to see if you know what they are, and if your preference is in accordance to the list. Then I will call that "down to earth".
rank amplifiers?
with static measurements?
In defense of the original premise, an amp that is perfectly low in "distortion" (however that is defined) for one speaker might be horrendous with another. Again the reactive load example.
So, it does make sense to view the issue in light of the load, not regardless of the load.
One could attempt to identify amps that work best regardless of the load, but that may still not yield one from the "top" of the list for a particular load, or it may. Again, seeing this integrated and not discrete can have some benefits.
_-_-bear
with static measurements?
In defense of the original premise, an amp that is perfectly low in "distortion" (however that is defined) for one speaker might be horrendous with another. Again the reactive load example.
So, it does make sense to view the issue in light of the load, not regardless of the load.
One could attempt to identify amps that work best regardless of the load, but that may still not yield one from the "top" of the list for a particular load, or it may. Again, seeing this integrated and not discrete can have some benefits.
_-_-bear
If that is your only requirenent, you can save yourself a lot of money.
A reasonable system, mid-fy, can easily do this. Heck, I'm willing to bet that even a Bose system can do that. Musicians do it all the time and with - in our eyes - mediocre systems.
HiFi goes further than that.
jan
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.