SY said:
I agree – very likely it’s more anecdotal marketing hype than anything “designed in” or an unusual set of measurements. An op-amp may sound different from another when plopped into a circuit designed for a different part, but I highly suspect there will be measurements and response curves to back up the new sound. But when two op-amps measure exactly the same and have identical responses, I highly doubt they sound different when subjective emotion is removed.
As far as DIY’ers go related to hocus-pocus, they generally have to be scientific and technically savvy, but they are also very much emotionally intertwined with their finished project. So, I suspect they are therefore very likely to make some pretty grandiose claims about the sound and capabilities of their work. I can’t remember the last time I read a DIY’er claiming their just-finished piece of gear sounds just like every other commercial unit of similar quality and capabilities. Even I, as skeptical and objective as I am, take it pretty hard when a double-blind test shows my DIY amp to sound just like an off-the-shelf piece.
DCPreamp said:
Only if TI, National Semi and Wolfson are flat out lying:
http://www.ednasia.com/article-11280-powerthistestingaudioics-Asia.html
A better, more comprhensive article exists elsewhere but I can't recall enough for a proper Googling.
This article, as it did the first time I read it, disturbs me to think audiophoole woo-woo BS is actually infiltrating the component and product OEMs. Making quantitative improvements as technology advances is one thing, but there is clearly a point where reality-based improvements stop and the rest is purely marketing.
I like this line:
“The quality of high-end audio, as many analog designers will tell you and as audiophiles may insist to the point of religious discourse, is excruciatingly hard to quantify even on the characterization bench and almost impossible to verify in a manufacturing-test environment.”
It’s pretty hard to quantify something that only exists in one’s imagination.
I also liked this part:
“As audio moves toward the rarified atmosphere of the audiophile, characterization becomes not only more rigorous, but also more customer-dependent. “At the high end, everyone has a different perspective on the importance of quality,” says Julian Hayes, vice president of marketing at high-end-audio-chip vendor Wolfson Microelectronics. “This leads you to a proliferation of characterization procedures.” Characterization also becomes harder.”
Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines Characterization as:
“Main Entry: char•ac•ter•i•za•tion
Pronunciation: "ker-ik-t(&-)r&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act of characterizing; especially : the artistic representation (as in fiction or drama) of human character or motives”
I read that article passage as once audio moves into the realm of audiophile, it has to take on an artistic value (as in fiction or drama) instead of persisting in quantifiable fact. Hmmmm. Interesting. I think I’d rather have the OEMs’ products simply reproducing music accurately and quantifiably and if I want characterization, I’ll EQ it myself.
At least the last section, “Can You Even Measure That” made several references to listeners and listening tests. ““I believe in blind tests,” Lave says” I do too and can only hope manufacturers continue to use blind tests to validate products and needed improvements. I hate the thought of a $1,300 MP3 player that is made of a $300 player and $1,000 headphone cables because the $1,000 headphone cables add a special characterization that can’t be tested or measured or heard in blind testing, but are audiophile-approved.
I like this line:
“The quality of high-end audio, as many analog designers will tell you and as audiophiles may insist to the point of religious discourse, is excruciatingly hard to quantify even on the characterization bench and almost impossible to verify in a manufacturing-test environment.”
It’s pretty hard to quantify something that only exists in one’s imagination.
I also liked this part:
“As audio moves toward the rarified atmosphere of the audiophile, characterization becomes not only more rigorous, but also more customer-dependent. “At the high end, everyone has a different perspective on the importance of quality,” says Julian Hayes, vice president of marketing at high-end-audio-chip vendor Wolfson Microelectronics. “This leads you to a proliferation of characterization procedures.” Characterization also becomes harder.”
Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines Characterization as:
“Main Entry: char•ac•ter•i•za•tion
Pronunciation: "ker-ik-t(&-)r&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act of characterizing; especially : the artistic representation (as in fiction or drama) of human character or motives”
I read that article passage as once audio moves into the realm of audiophile, it has to take on an artistic value (as in fiction or drama) instead of persisting in quantifiable fact. Hmmmm. Interesting. I think I’d rather have the OEMs’ products simply reproducing music accurately and quantifiably and if I want characterization, I’ll EQ it myself.
At least the last section, “Can You Even Measure That” made several references to listeners and listening tests. ““I believe in blind tests,” Lave says” I do too and can only hope manufacturers continue to use blind tests to validate products and needed improvements. I hate the thought of a $1,300 MP3 player that is made of a $300 player and $1,000 headphone cables because the $1,000 headphone cables add a special characterization that can’t be tested or measured or heard in blind testing, but are audiophile-approved.
Well, there is the clear recognition that audiophiles are entertained just as much (or more) by the equipment as they are by the music, the usual shibboleths notwithstanding.
Once you understand that the audiophile sector is an entertainment industry (a profound revelation given to me by the master entertainer, Nelson Pass) first and a technical one only as an afterthought, then all becomes clear.
Once you understand that the audiophile sector is an entertainment industry (a profound revelation given to me by the master entertainer, Nelson Pass) first and a technical one only as an afterthought, then all becomes clear.
IMO, the National app note AN-1651 was well written, as it made pretty clear that certain aspects of the circuit designs shown would be tough to justify by measurements, but were expected in a certain segment of the marketplace. If you're in business, and have competition, you have to find some way to differentiate your products. You can be very conservative, technically correct on every minor point, and starve. Or, you can do a little dance, get some talk going, and make some money. I've just rebuilt my preamp with the new National parts, I'm extremely happy with it, but the differences between the new parts and other op-amps are very subtle. Maybe they don't exist at all, but I believe they do, and isn't that the whole purpose of marketing? It's actually a neat game, as pinning down those differences on the test bench would require more work than I'm willing to do, and I'm willing to do more than most. So, the parts are very very good, the price is right, nobody is likely to say National's PR is out and out wrong, and hey, everybody wins. Except the too-anal engineer who's left saying "but... but... but..."
I suggest that everyone should build an A/B tester switch.
Real easy to build... one relay, a diode, a DC wall-wart, some connectors and a switch.
Rod Elliot has the plans over at his site.
For this to truly show us the lack or enhancements of a tweak, you will need to build and compare two "almost" identical circuits that will be compared....to see if your tweak can be heard or not.
I suggest building two simple headphone amps, using different opamps.
=FB=
Real easy to build... one relay, a diode, a DC wall-wart, some connectors and a switch.
Rod Elliot has the plans over at his site.
For this to truly show us the lack or enhancements of a tweak, you will need to build and compare two "almost" identical circuits that will be compared....to see if your tweak can be heard or not.
I suggest building two simple headphone amps, using different opamps.
=FB=
I think you have it quite wrong, unless things are backwards in Caifornia. Most audiophiles that I know or have met are far more concerned with the software than the hardware. As a matter of fact, most have an unbelievable amount of money invested in vinyl, although not so much with CD-listening types. It's been my experience that the techno naysayers are the ones with little involvement with music and spend very little of their budget on it. I will even go as far to say that whiz-bang demonstration disc now lives in the realm of the measurement/SPICE junkies.
John
Guys, that's some of the most creative exegesis of blunt words on a page I've seen on a weekday. Revisiting that app note (http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-1651.pdf), frankly I need a better indication Conrad on how you got from the preamble - which starts with a paragraph discussing the need for purposely designed audio (as opposed to general use) opamps, moves on to a summary of primary specs, spends two paragraphs on the applications forthcoming and ends with general boilerplate on implementation assumptions - to this:
That's a remarkable leap for what are the best spec'd devices to date. The rest of the article deals with specific application examples.
DCPreamp, I don't even know where to start. Are we reading the same article? First, that's the wrong definition of 'characterization'. As a core focus of this tech article is about measurement - techniques, improving them and application in the design loop - it's safe they meant the relevant technical definition of the word, as in to characterize a device. To measure and analyze it.
The summary you provide has no foundation in the article I read. That one spoke of the primacy of measurement in development, and of making better measurements. It spoke of driving factors as wide apart as the move away from MP3 to Dolby standards compliance. It discussed techniques and tools. At no point did anyone say anything remotely interpretable as "once audio moves into the realm of audiophile, it has to take on an artistic value (as in fiction or drama) instead of persisting in quantifiable fact". Interesting indeed, as it contradicted that very notion.
The key concept is 'one' in "no one quantitative test ". Nowhere did they suggest sacrificing measurements for audiophile criteria. Where it touched on it at all, it was about experienced listeners driving better measurements. You completely ignore that component, as well as the examples of blind listening tests suggesting flaws later confirmed by measurement, the errors corrected once characterized. Instead we get this line:
Huh? Sorry fellas, to my eye the reactions are near religious, using the text as jumping off points for concepts and opinions with the most tenuous, fragile connection to the supposed source. Or flat out contradicting it.
SY as always steers the deft logical course and opts to stand ground at the 'PT Barnum' rational, with a clever dash of data point and a hint of authoritative cite. Not conclusive, too slim for proof, but certainly better fitting the data and defensible.
jlsem, them's fighting words. I'm a Spice junkie who would rather listen to bacon fry than audiophile presentation fare.
That's a remarkable leap for what are the best spec'd devices to date. The rest of the article deals with specific application examples.
DCPreamp, I don't even know where to start. Are we reading the same article? First, that's the wrong definition of 'characterization'. As a core focus of this tech article is about measurement - techniques, improving them and application in the design loop - it's safe they meant the relevant technical definition of the word, as in to characterize a device. To measure and analyze it.
The summary you provide has no foundation in the article I read. That one spoke of the primacy of measurement in development, and of making better measurements. It spoke of driving factors as wide apart as the move away from MP3 to Dolby standards compliance. It discussed techniques and tools. At no point did anyone say anything remotely interpretable as "once audio moves into the realm of audiophile, it has to take on an artistic value (as in fiction or drama) instead of persisting in quantifiable fact". Interesting indeed, as it contradicted that very notion.
The key concept is 'one' in "no one quantitative test ". Nowhere did they suggest sacrificing measurements for audiophile criteria. Where it touched on it at all, it was about experienced listeners driving better measurements. You completely ignore that component, as well as the examples of blind listening tests suggesting flaws later confirmed by measurement, the errors corrected once characterized. Instead we get this line:
Huh? Sorry fellas, to my eye the reactions are near religious, using the text as jumping off points for concepts and opinions with the most tenuous, fragile connection to the supposed source. Or flat out contradicting it.
SY as always steers the deft logical course and opts to stand ground at the 'PT Barnum' rational, with a clever dash of data point and a hint of authoritative cite. Not conclusive, too slim for proof, but certainly better fitting the data and defensible.
jlsem, them's fighting words. I'm a Spice junkie who would rather listen to bacon fry than audiophile presentation fare.
OzMikeH said:
hehe, true.
I work in a large shop in a warehouse. I've set up a decent system in my work area, w/full range monitor speakers.
But all it takes is someone flippin on their $40 portable boom box 100 feet away, to ruin/drown out my music.
Damn boom boxes are fully tilted toward the upper midrange.
And on top of it all.......usually they blast Latin pop or reggeton...
=RR=
John, these days, who knows, but the last audio show I attended that focused on commercial equipment (would have been the late '80s), I was ready to shoot the next person who played Amanda McBroom. Before that, it was The Track Record, high dynamic range Muzak. Before that, it was Swedes trying (and failing) to swing when they played Jazz at the Pawnshop. The better the equipment, the more intolerable the pre-echo.
I hate audiophile records/CDs.
I hate audiophile records/CDs.
Yes, it's true audiophile demo discs are present at shows, but one should't get the impression that they are what audiophiles listen to at home. I've only ever heard Jazz at the Pawnshop once and have never listened to Famous Blue Raincoat.
I've never wanted to shoot anyone at a show. Strangulation would have been more satisfying.
John
An audiophile is what one uses to sharpen a dull stylus.
AN-1651 does its job well, but that job is marketing. It contains a lot of audiophile hand-waving, but no math to back it up. An experienced engineer/designer would look at the extra op-amps filtering and altering the impedance of the power supplies and want to see the numbers for PSRR and have it explained why this was even necessary. Especially since the new parts have excellent PSRR. The offered explanation needs to be supported, and my guess is that it's tough to do with real numbers. The same with the passive vs passive/active RIAA network design. The only real justification concerns "popular with the high performance community". AN-1651 offers a window into audiophile thinking, but no hardcore mathematical enlightenment as to the validity of the approaches taken.
Don't misunderstand- I'm glad they put it out, and think the parts are just great. I enjoy reading this kind of thing, but I don't confuse it with information supported by analysis.
edit- hey I kinda like McBroom, and Famous Blue Raincoat with JW is still one of my favorites. Never really got into the Sheffield Drum and Track record, though. How about The Digital Domain, with the big crescendo the THX people now use with their logo?
AN-1651 does its job well, but that job is marketing. It contains a lot of audiophile hand-waving, but no math to back it up. An experienced engineer/designer would look at the extra op-amps filtering and altering the impedance of the power supplies and want to see the numbers for PSRR and have it explained why this was even necessary. Especially since the new parts have excellent PSRR. The offered explanation needs to be supported, and my guess is that it's tough to do with real numbers. The same with the passive vs passive/active RIAA network design. The only real justification concerns "popular with the high performance community". AN-1651 offers a window into audiophile thinking, but no hardcore mathematical enlightenment as to the validity of the approaches taken.
Don't misunderstand- I'm glad they put it out, and think the parts are just great. I enjoy reading this kind of thing, but I don't confuse it with information supported by analysis.
edit- hey I kinda like McBroom, and Famous Blue Raincoat with JW is still one of my favorites. Never really got into the Sheffield Drum and Track record, though. How about The Digital Domain, with the big crescendo the THX people now use with their logo?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.