hypex ncore
Well it's true. If it wasn't, tube amps wouldn't be so popular. It's not negative, it's just what many prefer. Great specs are a detriment to many.
Look at these systems, and the price!
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ng-a-new-flagship-pre-amplifier-at-CES-t-2016
Check out the specs of those amps:
http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/ML3spec.html
Heh, I was the one getting flak for being negative about audiophiles
And that is definitely the approach I would recommend as well.
Well it's true. If it wasn't, tube amps wouldn't be so popular. It's not negative, it's just what many prefer. Great specs are a detriment to many.
Look at these systems, and the price!
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ng-a-new-flagship-pre-amplifier-at-CES-t-2016
Check out the specs of those amps:
http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/ML3spec.html
Last edited:
Anyone familiar with the history of philosophy knows that defining reality isn't an entirely trivial task. It is of course possible that none of us actually exist for real, and all this is just some hallucinations in the brain of a penguin.
That is why I was careful to respond by talking about different interpretations of "real". As I wrote, placebos do of course cause real differences in the electrochemical impulses in your brain neuron pathways, even if there are no differences in the air waves reaching your ears.
As the neurological responses to sound waves are filtered through a layer of cognitive functions that vary widely from one individual to another, the fields of engineering that study sound reproduction tend to focus on the actual air waves reaching your ears, so that is usually what we mean by "real" in daily use of language.
I of course agree totally. It still seems to be a somewhat unpopular point of view, and often leads to discussions about the nature of reality
I have long ago realized that there is often not much correlation between price and quality.
I of course agree totally. It still seems to be a somewhat unpopular point of view, and often leads to discussions about the nature of reality
[quote}Look at these systems, and the price!
I have long ago realized that there is often not much correlation between price and quality.
[/QUOTE]It may be best to try to build the poorest amp ever built. You might be able to fetch a million for it. Seems the higher the distortion, the higher the price.
For sure - but for some reason you've begun to beat Boggit over the head with it, telling him there's a 'problem' with his observations, that they might not be 'real'.
How about using some language which isn't so open to misunderstanding, like saying 'What you hear might possibly be down to expectation bias/placebo' ?
And since those impulses correlate with our conscious experience, it would not then be that Boggit 'thinks' he heard (as you are claiming here), rather that he did indeed experience what he said he did. Unless you're postulating some mechanism whereby Boggit's experiences lose their normal correlation with his neural impulses?
We might possibly be splitting hairs (or arguing about the number of angels that fit on the tip of a needle) here. Yes, there is a problem (if you want to know if there is an actual, objective difference or not) in that Boggit's observations, although real *to him*, might not correspond to externally observable physical differences in the actual sound waves.
Again, I was using the word "think" in the informal, everyday meaning of "occurs only inside someone's head, and doesn't necessarily correlate with external differences".
I think this discussion is already enough off-topic without going into the history of the mind-body problem (pre- and post-Descartes).
I think this discussion is already enough off-topic without going into the history of the mind-body problem (pre- and post-Descartes).
How about (just a gentle suggestion mind) toning down the off-topic rhetoric? (post 9650 I'm referring to in particular). ISTM Boggit isn't here primarily to fulfill your own very personal expectation biases about the development of Bruno's circuits.
I think the tone of that posting makes it pretty clear that I was expressing a personal opinion (the use of "I" multiple times is a strong hint). I don't expect Boggit to pay it any more attention to it than any other clearly labelled personal opinions - and I have made clear that I am not a potential customer, despite Boggit's product looking very well made and stylish, as I am more than happy with my existing nc400's.
You might also have missed:
So how about focusing on a fact-based discussion instead of rhetoric?
Guys, all we did was ask bavmike if he had conducted other relevant measurements alongside his noise measurement. After all, it was he who bragged about his discrete input buffer with an AP noise analysis. I take it from his responses that he hasn't so he's not in a position to compare his buffer with the stock buffer from a technical standpoint. It's a shame as I think it would have been very interesting. But I t's fine; it just means his opinions will just be weighted, by me at least, as subjective only.
Boggit has provided subjective opinions. He doesn't have bavmike's level of knowledge nor, it would appear, similar access to test equipment at this stage, but he has at least said he will try to get measurements done if he can. Good on him. Maybe it will help all of us better understand just what might be underlying the subjective experience claims being made.
It would be great to raise the quality level of technical discussion in this thread to match that found in other parts of this forum. Unfortunately it has a long way to go.
(Oh and if you want a better understanding of the capabilities of the LM4562 op amp, and some others, below 100Hz just take a look at Self's text. His measurements go from 10Hz to 50k.)
Boggit has provided subjective opinions. He doesn't have bavmike's level of knowledge nor, it would appear, similar access to test equipment at this stage, but he has at least said he will try to get measurements done if he can. Good on him. Maybe it will help all of us better understand just what might be underlying the subjective experience claims being made.
It would be great to raise the quality level of technical discussion in this thread to match that found in other parts of this forum. Unfortunately it has a long way to go.
(Oh and if you want a better understanding of the capabilities of the LM4562 op amp, and some others, below 100Hz just take a look at Self's text. His measurements go from 10Hz to 50k.)
In the pro world, discrete opamps still have their place because of their ability to run from +/-24V rails whiling driving 600R (or even 150R) loads at high levels. Thermal modulation (and more simply thermal dissipation to start with) might indeed be a problem in such conditions for ICs.
If you don't run your opamps at such extremes, it's more difficult to make the case for discrete opamps. And there are other good solutions available, such as composite opamps.
Just wanted to clarify this. You mean they are not expanding the list of OEMs that they will sell the NC1200 modules to? (I.e. You can't source them to expand your product line?)
Artificially limiting supply is all fine and dandy until the perfect clones from China start appearing.
The Chinese have been making class D amps for a while. But not Ncore quality.
Please stop this nonsense about opamps.
I have done a lot of opamp rolling in the past on my Tac Matchless recording console. The nice thing of a recording console is that you can try different opamps in different locations ( input, EQ, buffers and mixing busses) and do comparisons between channels and busses. Well, I can tell you whilst listening to a live vocalist via several expensive large membrane Neumann microphones and a Dynaudio M4 active monitorsystem, there are no differences detectable in sound. The only improvements where in noise level, and only using a lot of channels.
The only reason why the NC400 has a discrete input stage is to stop the never ending opamp discussion seen with the UCD series. To cut a story short, the NE5532 is still a favourite if you ask Bruno ( and me btw).
I have done a lot of opamp rolling in the past on my Tac Matchless recording console. The nice thing of a recording console is that you can try different opamps in different locations ( input, EQ, buffers and mixing busses) and do comparisons between channels and busses. Well, I can tell you whilst listening to a live vocalist via several expensive large membrane Neumann microphones and a Dynaudio M4 active monitorsystem, there are no differences detectable in sound. The only improvements where in noise level, and only using a lot of channels.
The only reason why the NC400 has a discrete input stage is to stop the never ending opamp discussion seen with the UCD series. To cut a story short, the NE5532 is still a favourite if you ask Bruno ( and me btw).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.