No to both questions.
My background is mathematics and IT, not engineering. I am used to modelling and designing first (and remodelling and redesigning second, and third and fourth and fifth and ... you get my point
), with building much, much later. I always thought that good sound was the result of superior design. What the last year, reading diyaudio, has taught me is that good sound is much more about part selection/interaction and optimising a design for those parts than I had thought.
It has also taught me never to give an example when I ask a hypothetical question
Which system gain article did you have in mind?
Maybe the mods should prohibit use of words like 'best', 'ideal' (except in a theoretical sense), 'ultimate' etc. from the forum? 'Best' and 'ideal' always mean that an optimisation problem must be be posed and solved, which means that detailed goodness criteria must be stated (but they never are). 'Ultimate' means impossible to better, which is a silly idea for anything made by humans.
At 0dB you can use all 16 (or 24 or however many you have) bits to send the signal. If you attenuate, you need some of those bits to send a lot of zeroes. You cannot use those bits for the actual signal. Information will thus be lost if you use digital attenuation.
On the front page of diyaudio under articles.
It might do you good to read all of them, so that you then know where to go before asking ambiguous questions.
BTW,
I get the impression that you think you are at a disadvantage in not being an electronics trained Member.
You will find if you look that the vast majority here are non electronics and non electrical. They are here because they have electronics as a hobby and as a result they are self taught.
It might do you good to read all of them, so that you then know where to go before asking ambiguous questions.
BTW,
I get the impression that you think you are at a disadvantage in not being an electronics trained Member.
You will find if you look that the vast majority here are non electronics and non electrical. They are here because they have electronics as a hobby and as a result they are self taught.
This audio discipline is not as exact as Math and IT, but far from it. Many experts spend their whole life in audio but still cannot create the "best" system. So never assume that you can fully understand this discipline simply by reading one or two books or spend one or two years in audio projects.
A good sound is a result of a complete system design from source to speaker. They are interdependent. We need to know IT in digital processing. We need to know mechanic and acoustics in speaker design and worse we need to know psychology and biology
Because audio system is usually designed partially, it makes part selection/interaction and optimization become more critical. You may have the "best" amplifier design and the "best" speaker design but if your speaker doesn't want to cooperate with the amp, then you will not get the "best" sound.
Are you following the digital technology/development in audio? In audio we have amplifier experts, speaker experts and may be "digital" experts. Sometimes an expert in one area doesn't understand the other areas. Cool, isn't it?
In audio, performance is measured in terms of the subjective listening experience. There can therefore never be an objective "best".
There can however be a theoretical basis to decide that one topology is objectively better than another.
Nelson for instance tells us in the Aleph manuals that he believes that using few gain stages is better than using a lot of gain stages.
Or at least gives the impression that he feels that few is better than more.
Last edited:
Are you following the digital technology/development in audio? In audio we have amplifier experts, speaker experts and may be "digital" experts. Sometimes an expert in one area doesn't understand the other areas. Cool, isn't it?
Yes, I see what you mean.
It is funny though that this is an example where there really is an "objective best". Do not throw away your bits!
Of course, but you don't really need 24 bits to represent the sound which is why digital attenuation works so well. 16 bits is enough and some more, the rest is just padding so in practice you are attenuating away the padding and not the signal you hear.
If you attenuate past 60-80 db then sure you will introduce high frequency noise compared to original signal, but then there won't be a lot of signal left so you probably wouldn't hear it anyway
Last edited:
Aleph 30 manual attached
Sorry. Aleph 30 manual was too large and exceeded diyaudio upload limit. Aleph 60 manual uploaded instead. Same text in this one.
Last edited:
The Pass Aleph 30 is unique in a number of ways:
Most amplifiers on the market have between five and seven gain stages in series between the input and the output. The Aleph 30 has but two, and enjoys a very direct path from input to output, further enhancing the purity of the circuit and the resulting sound.
Nelson mentioned the Aleph 30 uniqueness: Most amps on the market are class-B, the Aleph 30 is class-A
It's an amplifier by Lazy Cat. Only two stages but you can get above 50W easily, and current feedback.
Most amplifiers on the market have between five and seven gain stages in series between the input and the output. The Aleph 30 has but two, and enjoys a very direct path from input to output, further enhancing the purity of the circuit and the resulting sound.
Nelson mentioned the Aleph 30 uniqueness: Most amps on the market are class-B, the Aleph 30 is class-A
It's an amplifier by Lazy Cat. Only two stages but you can get above 50W easily, and current feedback.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.