Actually unlikely, I make no claims, things sound different/better/worse on a random basis. Those that complain the most about any questioning of their years of experience have the most to lose. Again DBT, no peeking, real possibility that you have no idea, how about it?
As far as I'm concerned op-amp rolling is BS, I share freely anything technical that I can if that's not enough fine by me.
Last edited:
1. They are Not random IME. Quit consistent for me.
2. Nothing to loose if proven wrong.
3. DBT is not the end-all. Meta-data over a wide base/spectrum/time Is.
Back to the design..... DADod put all of the 'desired' parameters together and the result is stunning. Again in just MHO. It will take awhile to get some built and into the hands of others. Meanwhile, engineering-wise, it does the job extremely well at covering all the bases and isnt overly complex nor costly.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Last time I had to chose an OPA, I asked my assistant to populate two of four slides of the mixing desk with the new ones. Not telling us witch was witch. We were 3 to make this test and quite always agreed together. When one was preferred, it was compared with the next ones...and so.
Blind enough ?
For the record, winner was OP260. I still have some samples left, they populate my personal preamp since this time and I feel no need to try something else, preferring to listen to...music than losing my time in such a long and boring experience.
One of these days, I'll have to listen to your ultra low distortion baby, to see if any difference.
I will not peek, to not be influenced by your distortion numbers ;-)
Richard Clark's $10k Amp Challenge
I think I've chimed in on this subject in this thread before, so I'll be brief
cheers:big cheers all around...
):
I was the engineer who helped Richard in this challenge, and our contention was never there are not differences between amps, indeed there are often large measurable differences, but between different amps, with levels matched within 0.05dB, no clipping and any eq differences compensated for, there was not a "sound" to the amp which allowed a person to audibly differentiate it from another. Amps with excessive noise are disqualified, the test was to see if there was a qualitative difference to the sound of an amp which could be discerned by a human ear given the test constraints. Sure, there are amps so crappy they are easy to hear, but that was not the point of the test, it was to compare two otherwise well-regarded amps, especially two who someone stated sounded very different.
There are those in the crowd here who will think of reasons to invalidate the test sight unseen, but that would be foolish. The test has been performed at AES shows with famous equipment designers and music producers you all know, using their own equipment, and still has yet to be "won," whatever that would mean.
Despite having been involved in this, neither Richard Clark nor I buy the cheapest amps; stability into difficult loads, inaudible recovery from clipping, good looks, reliability and other virtues are how I choose. I have owned Dynaco, Hafler, McIntosh, B&K, VTL, Audio Research, many Luxman amps, I really like the sound of TP's dual beta designs at high levels which scoping shows to be a soft edged and virtually instantaneous recovery after a clip. I think this is a crucial characteristic because, (to use an analogy popular here) just as is the case with throttle response in a car, if an amp has power, you will most likely use it.
The purpose of the test initially was to inject some sanity and humility into the ridiculous stratospheric mobile audio's claims of sonic superiority. The test inevitably spilled into professional audio, since Richard and I were involved in that realm as well, running the largest independent media manufacturing company in the US (in 1990). Lest you think us having tin ears, we were the initial and only CD plant Sheffield would use and had a long relationship with Doug Sax, as well as Erich Kunzel, Tom Jung and others. Our reputation encouraged Alan Parsons to use us for the remastered gold CD of Dark Side of the Moon.
Such is history...I have zero interest in becoming involved in that testing again, nor even a discussion about it's merits. I just thought I'd set the record straight since a mention was made. I couldn't tell you whether a CFA amp was ever auditioned, but there were hundreds of different mobile, consumer, professional, tube, SS, etc. involved. We ended up deciding level and eq differences were responsible for people's opinions...that, and people in general have very poor qualitative memories. Draw your own conclusions!
Cheers!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
1st on the internet
I think I've chimed in on this subject in this thread before, so I'll be brief
cheers:big cheers all around...):I was the engineer who helped Richard in this challenge, and our contention was never there are not differences between amps, indeed there are often large measurable differences, but between different amps, with levels matched within 0.05dB, no clipping and any eq differences compensated for, there was not a "sound" to the amp which allowed a person to audibly differentiate it from another. Amps with excessive noise are disqualified, the test was to see if there was a qualitative difference to the sound of an amp which could be discerned by a human ear given the test constraints. Sure, there are amps so crappy they are easy to hear, but that was not the point of the test, it was to compare two otherwise well-regarded amps, especially two who someone stated sounded very different.
There are those in the crowd here who will think of reasons to invalidate the test sight unseen, but that would be foolish. The test has been performed at AES shows with famous equipment designers and music producers you all know, using their own equipment, and still has yet to be "won," whatever that would mean.
Despite having been involved in this, neither Richard Clark nor I buy the cheapest amps; stability into difficult loads, inaudible recovery from clipping, good looks, reliability and other virtues are how I choose. I have owned Dynaco, Hafler, McIntosh, B&K, VTL, Audio Research, many Luxman amps, I really like the sound of TP's dual beta designs at high levels which scoping shows to be a soft edged and virtually instantaneous recovery after a clip. I think this is a crucial characteristic because, (to use an analogy popular here) just as is the case with throttle response in a car, if an amp has power, you will most likely use it.
The purpose of the test initially was to inject some sanity and humility into the ridiculous stratospheric mobile audio's claims of sonic superiority. The test inevitably spilled into professional audio, since Richard and I were involved in that realm as well, running the largest independent media manufacturing company in the US (in 1990). Lest you think us having tin ears, we were the initial and only CD plant Sheffield would use and had a long relationship with Doug Sax, as well as Erich Kunzel, Tom Jung and others. Our reputation encouraged Alan Parsons to use us for the remastered gold CD of Dark Side of the Moon.
Such is history...I have zero interest in becoming involved in that testing again, nor even a discussion about it's merits. I just thought I'd set the record straight since a mention was made. I couldn't tell you whether a CFA amp was ever auditioned, but there were hundreds of different mobile, consumer, professional, tube, SS, etc. involved. We ended up deciding level and eq differences were responsible for people's opinions...that, and people in general have very poor qualitative memories. Draw your own conclusions!
Cheers!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
1st on the internet
I never argued that CFA per se is better then VFA or sounds always better. I know about that heated discussion about DBT and don't say I could hear the difference, specially not me in my age. I would like the comments about technical aspects and differences between those two types (In my opinion CFA is not a good name for the type but now is to late to change it). What I've found, in my short contact with CFA, that from it somehow is easier to get what I want.
Waly I really appreciate your comments and deep knowledge, but sometime very aggressive and rude.
I waiting for your VFA with ULGF of 3-4 MHz and LG of 80 dB at 20 kHz. I couldn't do it.
I am very grateful to Richard for his comments on my amp, he have listened so many different types and productions.
Last edited:
Both crucial.
Nonlinear distortions, as much as I love to devise ways to minimize them, are not that easy to discern. But they are there and contribute to long-term fatigue, I think.
For short-term and DBT, level and EQ in that order. Subtle effects may manifest with long-term listening, but by then we are listening to equipment, usually, and not the music.
Eeks, no.
PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Corollary 4, in specific. (And one of my favorite papers)
Not really. For starters there's a 1/6 chance of a lucky guess. And perhaps you knew for certain that a change had been made, and presumably you had contact with whovever made it. Check out 'Clever Hans' for how we leak communication without speaking. Besides, if its equipment we know well, subliminal clues such as dirt, settings.
Mixing desk channels can seem to sound slightly different IME, we all have our favourite channels, whether real or not.
I think I've chimed in on this subject in this thread before, so I'll be brief
I was the engineer who helped Richard in this challenge, and our contention was never there are not differences between amps, indeed there are often large measurable differences, but between different amps, with levels matched within 0.05dB, no clipping and any eq differences compensated for, there was not a "sound" to the amp which allowed a person to audibly differentiate it from another. Amps with excessive noise are disqualified, the test was to see if there was a qualitative difference to the sound of an amp which could be discerned by a human ear given the test constraints. Sure, there are amps so crappy they are easy to hear, but that was not the point of the test, it was to compare two otherwise well-regarded amps, especially two who someone stated sounded very different.
There are those in the crowd here who will think of reasons to invalidate the test sight unseen, but that would be foolish. The test has been performed at AES shows with famous equipment designers and music producers you all know, using their own equipment, and still has yet to be "won," whatever that would mean.
Despite having been involved in this, neither Richard Clark nor I buy the cheapest amps; stability into difficult loads, inaudible recovery from clipping, good looks, reliability and other virtues are how I choose. I have owned Dynaco, Hafler, McIntosh, B&K, VTL, Audio Research, many Luxman amps, I really like the sound of TP's dual beta designs at high levels which scoping shows to be a soft edged and virtually instantaneous recovery after a clip. I think this is a crucial characteristic because, (to use an analogy popular here) just as is the case with throttle response in a car, if an amp has power, you will most likely use it.
The purpose of the test initially was to inject some sanity and humility into the ridiculous stratospheric mobile audio's claims of sonic superiority. The test inevitably spilled into professional audio, since Richard and I were involved in that realm as well, running the largest independent media manufacturing company in the US (in 1990). Lest you think us having tin ears, we were the initial and only CD plant Sheffield would use and had a long relationship with Doug Sax, as well as Erich Kunzel, Tom Jung and others. Our reputation encouraged Alan Parsons to use us for the remastered gold CD of Dark Side of the Moon.
Such is history...I have zero interest in becoming involved in that testing again, nor even a discussion about it's merits. I just thought I'd set the record straight since a mention was made. I couldn't tell you whether a CFA amp was ever auditioned, but there were hundreds of different mobile, consumer, professional, tube, SS, etc. involved. We ended up deciding level and eq differences were responsible for people's opinions...that, and people in general have very poor qualitative memories. Draw your own conclusions!
Cheers!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
1st on the internet
Speak for yourself. I'm getting into investment banking.
You'll like it
My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance: Emanuel Derman: 9780470192733: Amazon.com: Books
George
??? Do-you have maintenance problems ?
One of our goal was to find a solution for the problem having a change in sound quality in the mixing bus amplifier while you have one, or 48 slices (muted) plugged-in.
Was not surprised a CFA won, because they keep their bandwidth high and nearly non affected by the gain. Contrary to the VFAs. If I remember well, we had 3 CFAs in the list, and they were all the 3 the preferred at the end.
You know that the bandwidth of a CFA change with impedance of the feedback (here impossible to change, too much work). This OP260 was the one with the most extended bandwidth with this given feedback impedance.
About blind, why do-you want us to lie to ourselves ? Do you think that i haven't preferred to conclude that we needed no change of all those OPAs ?
To say everything, we tried the same thing for other places and functions in our mixing desk. And we concluded most of the time that the game was not worth the effort. But, for the bus, improvement was obvious.
I usually do the same: when a change is difficult to figure out, i conclude that there is nothing to consider. I'm not an "Audiophile" ;-)
Outstanding. And applicable to so many things besides biomed --- don't get me started!
I had an outside office partner who was given to paranoia (and it was well-founded --- his wife really was out to get him). I pointed out that people had a significant leg up in guessing his security system code by observing the subtle smoothing of the surfaces of the the numbers on the keypad.
He also insisted on unplugging things rather than turning switches off when he left for the day. And when I began to pay for a larger portion of the space, and had books that I was cataloging piled in an upper office area, along or near to structural walls, he decided that it was going to lead to the collapse of the structure, and he would get sued. When he sold his business he was also certain of some litigation to come (it didn't happen, as I told him it would not).
One can appreciate that when he would occasionally reach out and want to do some enterprise again, I demurred.
Long time ago, we had may-be 10 of those audiophile shops in Paris. You know, owned by various gurus.
It was one of our favorite game, with a friend of mine, when we had nothing to do, to visit them and enjoy their methods to sell exotic amplifiers or strange outpriced magic cables.
One of them had a very subtle method. When comparing two things, he was never making any comment to influence-us. Just, he remained completely still while listening one of them, and was swinging near imperceptibly when he was playing the one he wanted to sell. It was fun to contemplate his ride And hard not to laugh.
"Être pris pour un con par un imbécile est un plaisir de fin gourmet."
(how to lose your mind, but not your wallet, reasons to be cheerful, part IV)
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.