janneman said:Which means that, with all those different speakers around, anybody's report on how the GC sounds on HIS system is worth diddly to anybody else
You are absolutely right.
Then there are people who listen to their amps with LOTS of different speakers and on lots of different systems.
For anything you build you need good references, be it speakers, amps, dacs, whatever.
In the case of amps, a good amp must be as 'universal' as possible, it must work well with most normal speakers. And it must be tested with lots of speakers.
Otherwise it's like you say, one diy amp for one diy system.
I think that what you are talking about should not be called "refrence". Unfortunately that name means something different then what it should in audiophile terms.
I think that a common, cheap, easy to build speaker would be great for testing subjective traits of amps. We aren't talking hard science here but it would be a level playing ground to compare opinions. The design would have to be nearfield so that room interactions could be minimized. I think a simple sealed or ported monitor sized speaker utilizing a single driver would be best. Builders could use this setup to talk about common opinions and then they could use the amps in their regular system to discuss the "at home" aspects of the amps.
I think that this would also be great for comparing any amp on this site along with other types of gear such as preamps, DAC's, and etc.
I think that a common, cheap, easy to build speaker would be great for testing subjective traits of amps. We aren't talking hard science here but it would be a level playing ground to compare opinions. The design would have to be nearfield so that room interactions could be minimized. I think a simple sealed or ported monitor sized speaker utilizing a single driver would be best. Builders could use this setup to talk about common opinions and then they could use the amps in their regular system to discuss the "at home" aspects of the amps.
I think that this would also be great for comparing any amp on this site along with other types of gear such as preamps, DAC's, and etc.
I agree with Pink Mouse, but I'd be happy to build a cheap "reference" speaker. Unfortunately, cheap is the big thing for me, and unfortunately I think many of us can rule the Jordans out, sorry, but I definately don't have the money for that and I'm not sure many people are willing to spend that kind of money on speakers to be used for listening impressions.
I do like the idea of using a buyout or something, or using a tangband driver.
Josh
I do like the idea of using a buyout or something, or using a tangband driver.
Josh
DJNUBZ said:
I read you, but I don't think it will fly either. Common sense dictates that if you want to use a common speaker to compare differences in amps, the speaker should be of such quality that it can render even the most minute vanishingly small differences. That means the very best, and very expensive, speaker. Not many people will be willing to do that!
That's why I suggested headphones. Arguably, a good phone has the resolving power of the very best speakers (if only because of the immunity of external noise and room resonances), without the price.
You don't even all have to buy a set of phones, you can just ship it around, along with a small box with 4 resistors to adapt it to the amp speaker output.
Jan Didden
This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player!
Nuuk said:
Right Nuuk, I agree it seems an unreachable goal. But we might start with the component that arguably has the greatest variation and differences in sound, the speaker (with the room). I think that is what the original poster had in mind. It is not that if you think you cannot get 100% correct that you should not start at all!
Jan Didden
Nick,
that's why I suggested the Tang Band... Cheap, accessible, and astounding results for a low cost driver.
Lets apply the same logic to this as from the LS3/5A - the main basis behind the design was to produce a small compact monitor, with known 'weaknesses' .
It does not have to be perfect, or extend from 0 to infinity.
The enclosure would be small, easy to construct, rigid and low cost too. - ideal for evaluation purposes.
It could even have a polygonal cabinet front to back to minimise resonances etc.
This could be done, with some sembelance of consistancy...
JMHO
Owen
that's why I suggested the Tang Band... Cheap, accessible, and astounding results for a low cost driver.
Lets apply the same logic to this as from the LS3/5A - the main basis behind the design was to produce a small compact monitor, with known 'weaknesses' .
It does not have to be perfect, or extend from 0 to infinity.
The enclosure would be small, easy to construct, rigid and low cost too. - ideal for evaluation purposes.
It could even have a polygonal cabinet front to back to minimise resonances etc.
This could be done, with some sembelance of consistancy...
JMHO
Owen
I agree Jan but in this case, I don't think that anything less than say 90% would be objective, and I'm not sure that we can reach that, given that we all have different hearing characteristics!
Owen, I also take your point about the LS3/5A but keep in mind that they were designed by the BBC for use in studios and outside broadcast vans, ie in very similar conditions. And they were designed to 'do a job', rather than operate as 'recreational' hi-fi!
As somebody has already pointed out, the project to build a reference full-range speaker on another forum fizzled out after a lot of posts.
And even if we all have this 'reference' speaker, so what unless that is the one we use in our systems! In other words, we have to decide if we are building for our pleasure, or as an academic exercise. I know which camp I fall into!
Nuuk said:This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player!
Oh what an excellent post!
About Jan's idea of using headphones, it is an interesting idea, but unfortunately it won't serve to know how the amp will behave with a normal pair of speakers.
For instance, the low capacitange 1,000~1,500uF chipamp (this we can call it a 'GC') in my experience, and as a result of lots of tests, doesn't drive most normal speakers. It will drive headphones without trouble, though.
So, there are things you won't be able to detect with headphones. Besides driving ability, differencies in soundstage, voice and instrument placement will not be detectable.
Headphones are very 'in your head', center, left, right.
Btw to isolate from exterior noise, they should be closed back.
Try this...
One of Vikash's creations..
http://www.vikash.info/audio/W3-871S/
Nick,
I saw alot of that thread, and I am not suprised by the lack of agreement.
What I envisage is a low cost tool of known 'quantity' - the tangband set up does this nicely, and is cheap enough for most to be able to use it as a known quantity (and small enough to hide in a cupboard). Yes it will have limitations, it is a nearfield monitor, it does have mid 80's efficiency. But those are also it's strengths. Nearfield takes the room neatly out of the equation and the mid 80's efficiency means that the amps have to be worked harder (showing the differences neatly between high cap and low cap supplies for example)...
The idea is to produce a tool that is an enjoyable evaluation aid, of known quantity, not to produce a 'rocket science' ultimate maxi-monitor, or to incurr huge costs - the same compromises that drove the LS3/5 project from the start...
Just my view, and it would be easy enough for me to squeeze that kind of budget past the wife...
Owen
One of Vikash's creations..
http://www.vikash.info/audio/W3-871S/
Nick,
I saw alot of that thread, and I am not suprised by the lack of agreement.
What I envisage is a low cost tool of known 'quantity' - the tangband set up does this nicely, and is cheap enough for most to be able to use it as a known quantity (and small enough to hide in a cupboard). Yes it will have limitations, it is a nearfield monitor, it does have mid 80's efficiency. But those are also it's strengths. Nearfield takes the room neatly out of the equation and the mid 80's efficiency means that the amps have to be worked harder (showing the differences neatly between high cap and low cap supplies for example)...
The idea is to produce a tool that is an enjoyable evaluation aid, of known quantity, not to produce a 'rocket science' ultimate maxi-monitor, or to incurr huge costs - the same compromises that drove the LS3/5 project from the start...
Just my view, and it would be easy enough for me to squeeze that kind of budget past the wife...
Owen
owen said:
Owen, ther's no guarantee of consistancy on a diy project like this.
You can publish all the details for the construction of the speaker, but then someone will choose different materials (MDF, particle, etc...) for the enclosure and for the stuffing (and the amount of stuffing), crossover components, if any, and the final results will vary from speaker to speaker.
Maybe at this point I'd like to clarify, that if your purpose is to built a 'great' amp (gainclone or otherwise) IN YOUR SYSTEM, the issue of a reference speaker is USELESS. Also, in this case, reports or opinions of other's that such-and-part or such-and-such configuration sounds best IN THEIR SYSTEM is USELESS for your system.
However, if your purpose is to identify what really influences sound, and to what extend, and to further the state of the art, references (speakers, sources) are a must.
Jan Didden
However, if your purpose is to identify what really influences sound, and to what extend, and to further the state of the art, references (speakers, sources) are a must.
Jan Didden
Stuffing - None.
cabinet - MDF - available everywhere, cheap.
No crossover.
In my experience people try the different materials because of an urge to 'better' the speaker (mdf poor, particle board, better, ply better yet and so on), likewise with the stuffing - and nailing those details, as well as the box shape and external alignment ( affects baffle step point), would give a recipe for a 'known' speaker. If the user wants to build a second set with better box, fancy veneer, a wad of stuffing and so on, they they are free to do so, but it would no longer tie to the original recipe, and should not be used for comparisons...
That again was one of the basics behind the LS3/5... the box design was explicitly stipulated in the license, and for it to be a BBC licensed product, it had to follow those details exactly! If we were to persue this route for a 'mini-reference', this would have to be accepted and understood by the builders.
As always, it's a little controversial, but a project like this will have to be compromised - we just have to ensure that the compromises are the same...
Owen
cabinet - MDF - available everywhere, cheap.
No crossover.
In my experience people try the different materials because of an urge to 'better' the speaker (mdf poor, particle board, better, ply better yet and so on), likewise with the stuffing - and nailing those details, as well as the box shape and external alignment ( affects baffle step point), would give a recipe for a 'known' speaker. If the user wants to build a second set with better box, fancy veneer, a wad of stuffing and so on, they they are free to do so, but it would no longer tie to the original recipe, and should not be used for comparisons...
That again was one of the basics behind the LS3/5... the box design was explicitly stipulated in the license, and for it to be a BBC licensed product, it had to follow those details exactly! If we were to persue this route for a 'mini-reference', this would have to be accepted and understood by the builders.
As always, it's a little controversial, but a project like this will have to be compromised - we just have to ensure that the compromises are the same...
Owen
Nuuk said:This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player!
One thing is for sure I will not try or attempt to try every type or implementation of the gainclone or it's variations. I simply don’t have the time.
I believe we all know, we will never get the "best" sound. We are shooting at a moving target, one that will change direction at a dime.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.