AJinFLA said:
You used the words "smeared", not me. It's not a word I usually use to describe hifi equipment.
Recording professionals are well aware of the colorations of analog and digital equipment. I've been reading Loudspeakers for Music Recording and Reproduction by Newell and Holland, and was fascinated to discover that professionals rank loudspeaker systems and the associated amplifiers by their ability to discriminate between different ADC/DACs and bit depths.
In the view of recording professionals, a low-resolution amp/loudspeaker cannot discriminate between 16-bit and higher resolution digital, and does not reveal differences between ADCs and DACs. Higher resolution loudspeakers reveal what's on 18-bit systems, and the highest resolution studio monitors clearly reveal the differences between 16, 18, 20 and 24-bit systems and professional-grade ADCs and DACs. This is one disadvantage of digital crossovers - the inexpensive ADCs and DACs in the crossover mask differences between the pro-grade digital systems that are used upstream.
Obviously, a low-resolution loudspeaker is not a wise choice for mixing and mastering applications, since playback errors leads to poor mixdown and mastering decisions that then become part of the recording released to the public.
To say that all (pro) digital sounds the same does not reflect the experience of industry professionals. There's a reason that digital in the studio has been getting progressively better over the last three decades. The same applies to analog electronics - the amplifier without audible coloration has yet to be designed, despite many decades of trying by the best minds in the industry.
But all of this depends on personal perception, not what industry professionals think. If all ADCs, DACs, and analog electronics sound the same to you, the smart thing is to buy all your stuff at Costco or Radio Shack (or the local prosound shop), download MP3's off the Internet, and save a whole lot of money.
Lynn Olson said:
Thanks Lynn, you are welcome. I will be watching how this develops and if you end up using what we call the Super Linear Cathode Follower (SLCF), how you deal with the small but yet definable DC still present. Using a good quality 6922 (not cheap 6DJ8 not up to spec) it is in most cases sub 1V if memory serves me right. Also, with up around 10mA the output Z can be sub 100R - again depending on tube variations etc, so we do have a real cathode follower. Even SS (and I prefer BiPolar - especially Darlingtons, as followers over Fets), it is similarly.
Joe R.
John Watkinson of Celtic Audio is claiming the same for years. I attended a local EAS meeting recently where he was the guest speaker.
Quite interesting what he had to say ! He also said that ferrite magnest don't offer as high a resolution as neo and other rare-earth magnets.
The book you pointed too seems to be interesting. I wanted to get it from one of our university libraries. I can only be read on-site unfortunately !!
Regards
Charles
The buffer circuit that I posted a link to a few pages ago manages the following in simulation - as always results need to be taken with a big pinch of salt, depending on model accuracy:
1) For 1V pk, 600 Ohm load, k2 = -117dB, k3 ~ -150dB
2) For 1V pk, 10K load (more likely inside crossover), k2 ~ -148dB, k3 in numerical noise.
PSRR is about 120dB in the audio band.
Output impedance is about 50Ohms - by design, removing padding resistor can bring it down to of order 10Ohms.
All this requires no global feedback at all.
1) For 1V pk, 600 Ohm load, k2 = -117dB, k3 ~ -150dB
2) For 1V pk, 10K load (more likely inside crossover), k2 ~ -148dB, k3 in numerical noise.
PSRR is about 120dB in the audio band.
Output impedance is about 50Ohms - by design, removing padding resistor can bring it down to of order 10Ohms.
All this requires no global feedback at all.
Lynn Olson said:
This paper may be of interest: "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September. E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran.
Their summary is at the bottom of my post, though there's obviously more info in the paper - it's well worth a read.
"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."
OH, that's nice.
Exactly what was those "high resolution recordings" used in the test?
DSD or PCM?
That would be nice to hear that AES has published a research which scientifically proves SACD to hoax
More seriously: I guess this might create some conversation. Perhaps a new thread dedicated for that?
Exactly what was those "high resolution recordings" used in the test?
DSD or PCM?
That would be nice to hear that AES has published a research which scientifically proves SACD to hoax
More seriously: I guess this might create some conversation. Perhaps a new thread dedicated for that?
Hi
No, there was no DC on the primary – at least not more than some milivolts of offset can cause.
No, dont think that my Plitrons were bad samples, sadly don't have " Jensen professional, Lundahl, Dave Slagle, and Tribute" to compare with.
Can't comment on the Audio Precision input. Might be they use an active circuit for distortion cancelling - haven't found specs though.
You know, distortion of transformers raise when lowering the frequency and my measurements were taken at 30 Hz and 80 Hz and NOT at 1 kHz and up for good reasons.
Maybe someone can point me to serious measurements in this area - if there are non, I doubt mine are wrong.
What might be of interest here is a comparison of tube / ss / transformer distortion I stumbled across when googling for measurements of audio transformer distortion
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1640/distortion
Greetings
Michael
Lynn Olson said:
No, there was no DC on the primary – at least not more than some milivolts of offset can cause.
No, dont think that my Plitrons were bad samples, sadly don't have " Jensen professional, Lundahl, Dave Slagle, and Tribute" to compare with.
Can't comment on the Audio Precision input. Might be they use an active circuit for distortion cancelling - haven't found specs though.
You know, distortion of transformers raise when lowering the frequency and my measurements were taken at 30 Hz and 80 Hz and NOT at 1 kHz and up for good reasons.
Maybe someone can point me to serious measurements in this area - if there are non, I doubt mine are wrong.
What might be of interest here is a comparison of tube / ss / transformer distortion I stumbled across when googling for measurements of audio transformer distortion
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1640/distortion
Greetings
Michael
Yea... I don't want to hijack the thread, or start another object vs subjective war, but the paper contained some topical info.
I'll dig it out tomorrow and check if they've specified DSD or PCM.
An interesting side note is that they do touch on why DVD-A/SACD often sounds better than CD, and it's because what's written to the disk is often a different mix.
CDs are mixed with one eye on the consumer market, and are often heavily compressed (using less dynamic range, but sounding 'louder'). DVD-A/SACD is aimed more at the high-end market, and the mixes are usually better. I've heard this claim before from a couple of recording guys on a US based forum, though I don't personally know anyone in the industry who could confirm the info.
I'll dig it out tomorrow and check if they've specified DSD or PCM.
An interesting side note is that they do touch on why DVD-A/SACD often sounds better than CD, and it's because what's written to the disk is often a different mix.
CDs are mixed with one eye on the consumer market, and are often heavily compressed (using less dynamic range, but sounding 'louder'). DVD-A/SACD is aimed more at the high-end market, and the mixes are usually better. I've heard this claim before from a couple of recording guys on a US based forum, though I don't personally know anyone in the industry who could confirm the info.
Very enlightening.
I expected a wide range of viewpoints and was not disappointed.
The other thing is this doesn't look as "done to death" as power amps and line stages. Cool.
Lynn; By the way, The ARC crossover was designed in the early 80's and I believe uses 12AX7. I'm not surprised it isn't well thought of. And deservedly so.
Above 500 Hz, it looks like either Triode Cf with some kind of active loading or high speed op-amps look promising.
So far, the implementations illustrated are single ended.
Would a balanced circuit provide benefits not outweighed by the higher part count?
I would also be interested in trying elliptical filters actively.
Jon Marsh has championed them for higher order XO in passive speaker designs. The lower phase shift could be beneficial to active crossovers. My question is: Does this "require" a gyrator, and how does a gyrator sound? I assume that gyrators couldn't be done practically with tubes.
My biggest surprise so far is that the DCX2496 may be usable under 500 Hz. If so, I may become more interested in modifying it.
Doug
I expected a wide range of viewpoints and was not disappointed.
The other thing is this doesn't look as "done to death" as power amps and line stages. Cool.
Lynn; By the way, The ARC crossover was designed in the early 80's and I believe uses 12AX7. I'm not surprised it isn't well thought of. And deservedly so.
Above 500 Hz, it looks like either Triode Cf with some kind of active loading or high speed op-amps look promising.
So far, the implementations illustrated are single ended.
Would a balanced circuit provide benefits not outweighed by the higher part count?
I would also be interested in trying elliptical filters actively.
Jon Marsh has championed them for higher order XO in passive speaker designs. The lower phase shift could be beneficial to active crossovers. My question is: Does this "require" a gyrator, and how does a gyrator sound? I assume that gyrators couldn't be done practically with tubes.
My biggest surprise so far is that the DCX2496 may be usable under 500 Hz. If so, I may become more interested in modifying it.
Doug
Magnetar said:
Raise all sources analog level to a reasonably high level that doesn't clip your inputs.
Or better yet... never feed them analog sources.
I am unsure of whether digital crossovers are better than say a Marchand XM9 using best opamps, resistors, etc.
Especially if you are using IIR based filters anyways.
I've seen both of those articles before, the Meyer & Moran causing a riot among the inmate population at a certain asylum .
However, my point has more to do with those folks affected by the sight or prior knowledge of op-amps, solid state, etc., in the signal path, of which there seem to be a great many on the web.
Something that would be in the signal path during recording/mixing/mastering and embedded in most recorded media over the last 30yrs or more.
Clearly this is something that those horrified by the degradation and damage wreaked by op amps (such as the 741's modern ancestry), cheap caps, megaNFB solid state, etc, etc.
would want to avoid hearing like the plague. I don't know of any mixing boards that qualify as "audiophile grade".
So there must be pristine recordings made without such fidelity loss, that those with op-amp free/no NFB/valve circuitry/phile caps reproduction systems enjoy. Yet no one seems able to provide a list of these titles, or maybe a link to a website with such a list.
As a music lover, I have well over a thousand titles, so I would imagine most of the valve/op-amp free crowd do as well.
The question is, what titles? Anyone?
cheers,
AJ
.However, my point has more to do with those folks affected by the sight or prior knowledge of op-amps, solid state, etc., in the signal path, of which there seem to be a great many on the web.
Something that would be in the signal path during recording/mixing/mastering and embedded in most recorded media over the last 30yrs or more.
Clearly this is something that those horrified by the degradation and damage wreaked by op amps (such as the 741's modern ancestry), cheap caps, megaNFB solid state, etc, etc.
would want to avoid hearing like the plague. I don't know of any mixing boards that qualify as "audiophile grade".
So there must be pristine recordings made without such fidelity loss, that those with op-amp free/no NFB/valve circuitry/phile caps reproduction systems enjoy. Yet no one seems able to provide a list of these titles, or maybe a link to a website with such a list.
As a music lover, I have well over a thousand titles, so I would imagine most of the valve/op-amp free crowd do as well.
The question is, what titles? Anyone?
cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:I've seen both of those articles before, the Meyer & Moran causing a riot among the inmate population at a certain asylum
However, my point has more to do with those folks affected by the sight or prior knowledge of op-amps, solid state, etc., in the signal path, of which there seem to be a great many on the web.
Something that would be in the signal path during recording/mixing/mastering and embedded in most recorded media over the last 30yrs or more.
Clearly this is something that those horrified by the degradation and damage wreaked by op amps (such as the 741's modern ancestry), cheap caps, megaNFB solid state, etc, etc.
would want to avoid hearing like the plague. I don't know of any mixing boards that qualify as "audiophile grade".
So there must be pristine recordings made without such fidelity loss, that those with op-amp free/no NFB/valve circuitry/phile caps reproduction systems enjoy. Yet no one seems able to provide a list of these titles, or maybe a link to a website with such a list.
As a music lover, I have well over a thousand titles, so I would imagine most of the valve/op-amp free crowd do as well.
The question is, what titles? Anyone?
cheers,
AJ
Your point is well taken by me at least -
The same people that have superstitions (don't we all) are blind to all but their own prepositions. ie - imagine designing an amplifier with a dynamically compressed, weak bass speaker, (or maybe a mediocre tweeter like a Heil) then claiming it's superiority over all others. You also seem to have prepositions, as do I
Try Mapleshade
Some of my best 'sounding' recordings are from the 50's and 60's - and they are on vinyl - some are 'direct to disk' WOW
AJinFLA said:
[off topic]
Hey, I've just found that audophiles' everlasting fav got reissued (again) - yes it is that pinnacle of jazz mastery "Jazz at the Pawnshop". It already got voted as the most significant release in 2007 in many audiophile circles
I mean, I love Swedish jazz scene, I adore Stockholm jazz venues (I've spent many enjoying nights at Stampen and Fasching), but let's be realistic.
... oops I forgot, there is no 'realistic' in audiophilia nervosa vocabulary ...
[/off topic]
Bratislav said:
[off topic]
Hey, I've just found that audophiles' everlasting fav got reissued (again) - yes it is that pinnacle of jazz mastery "Jazz at the Pawnshop". It already got voted as the most significant release in 2007 in many audiophile circles
I mean, I love Swedish jazz scene, I adore Stockholm jazz venues (I've spent many enjoying nights at Stampen and Fasching), but let's be realistic.
... oops I forgot, there is no 'realistic' in audiophilia nervosa vocabulary ...
[/off topic]
And God forbid the word ACCURATE
AJ,
Start looking hard for any and all Unicorn label recordings. Most specifically for Horenstein's Mahler third, with the LSO, Unicorn RHS 302/303. All tube gear, apparently first class tube gear, bought or gifted from one of the majors in Britain, to this group of engineers.
Not always the very best performances, though the Mahler third certainly is, but the recordings are amazing. You can find them on LP and R/R tape, both from direct dubs and through Barclay Crocker Dolby B releases. Even the Dolby process fails to ruin the sound, though the LP is superior in every way to the B/C R/R tape.
Then their are the real Mercury releases, both on LP and tape, with the Respigi pieces right at the front. Without doubt there are more, but only a few have made it into CD format and even fewer into SACD. The RCA stalwarts being a very good exception.
I for one suffer from extraordinarily good Red Book audio. Many pieces are in my library in CD, SACD, R/R tape and played and unplayed copies of LP's. The CD's are more abrupt in character than the pure analog or the SACD versions. Rarely are they less musical, though intricate high frequency activities are not as well formed or as complete. SACD versions do have a very fine "ease" in comparison, but not often any more musical value. The analog items are always more complete than either digital medium, but can suffer from a loss of low level information coherence. Not always, but I could point you to a few.
I am sure that if you could withstand the corrosive nature of Romy the Cat, or just lurked in his musical archives section, you would be pointed to many many more, tube based recordings, of the highest caliber.
Bud
Start looking hard for any and all Unicorn label recordings. Most specifically for Horenstein's Mahler third, with the LSO, Unicorn RHS 302/303. All tube gear, apparently first class tube gear, bought or gifted from one of the majors in Britain, to this group of engineers.
Not always the very best performances, though the Mahler third certainly is, but the recordings are amazing. You can find them on LP and R/R tape, both from direct dubs and through Barclay Crocker Dolby B releases. Even the Dolby process fails to ruin the sound, though the LP is superior in every way to the B/C R/R tape.
Then their are the real Mercury releases, both on LP and tape, with the Respigi pieces right at the front. Without doubt there are more, but only a few have made it into CD format and even fewer into SACD. The RCA stalwarts being a very good exception.
I for one suffer from extraordinarily good Red Book audio. Many pieces are in my library in CD, SACD, R/R tape and played and unplayed copies of LP's. The CD's are more abrupt in character than the pure analog or the SACD versions. Rarely are they less musical, though intricate high frequency activities are not as well formed or as complete. SACD versions do have a very fine "ease" in comparison, but not often any more musical value. The analog items are always more complete than either digital medium, but can suffer from a loss of low level information coherence. Not always, but I could point you to a few.
I am sure that if you could withstand the corrosive nature of Romy the Cat, or just lurked in his musical archives section, you would be pointed to many many more, tube based recordings, of the highest caliber.
Bud
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.