DAC chip is what makes DACs sound different. Not only that the spec is good, but there are "approaches" that is taken that makes thing successful. The objectivists should learn something here.
Just download the datasheet for the Wolfson DAC and you will find the application example as I believe is used by NAD.
Differential DAC implementations are usually better than single DAC. Here, DUAL differential is used. So the LPF (the 2134) can be made simple, such as 2nd order, one chip for 2 channels.
Many objectivists said that Kusunoki was idiot with his NOS idea. He might not be an expert in theory but why not learn from his other side of strength??
Only with good ears you can relate, make correlation based on statistics, between bad sound and steep digital filter for example. If only objectivists want to listen, may be they can come up with ANALOG reconstruction filter or better innovation.
Is "objectivist dogma" what those who understand circuits actually believe, or what others falsely claim they believe?dvv said:
As both the amps have low distortion (by one measure) then perceived sound differences will probably be due to something else: EMC issues, frequency response, damping factor etc. The popularity of awful 'audiophile' cables (including some DIY tomfoolery) suggests to me that some people prefer to hear some RF interference effects with their sound, calling it 'detail'. It is well known that some prefer a little low-order distortion, although 0.08% is probably insufficient for them.
Stan Curtice said something in one of his explanations. He said if he gave a number of engineers a circuit to build all would sound different. The one he expects to be worst will be CAD designed. He said it, not me.
He made an unusual observation. At Cambridge Audio he made very scruffy prototypes that sounded great. They never sounded as good in production. When working with Rotel he was able to change that.
His best designs if memory correct were point to point with turrets in nice military plain board.
It set me thinking. Over a year ago I showed a nasty point to point prototype with dreadful wiring. The technical spec better than hoped for. It set me thinking. I should carefully tidy it up. If Stan is right I would be in for a very pleasant surprise. My point to point phono stage sounds very good. Valves I suspect were more about that than anything.
Since I did that amp plenty of real work has come in so I never had time to go further. The big surprise was no stability problems. I really should complete it. It was with single VAS which I suspect should be double. It's worth 20 dB at 50 kHz to do that if this design and doubles the slew rate plus makes it symmetrical. LTP tail will be a resistor on it's own DC supply.
He made an unusual observation. At Cambridge Audio he made very scruffy prototypes that sounded great. They never sounded as good in production. When working with Rotel he was able to change that.
His best designs if memory correct were point to point with turrets in nice military plain board.
It set me thinking. Over a year ago I showed a nasty point to point prototype with dreadful wiring. The technical spec better than hoped for. It set me thinking. I should carefully tidy it up. If Stan is right I would be in for a very pleasant surprise. My point to point phono stage sounds very good. Valves I suspect were more about that than anything.
Since I did that amp plenty of real work has come in so I never had time to go further. The big surprise was no stability problems. I really should complete it. It was with single VAS which I suspect should be double. It's worth 20 dB at 50 kHz to do that if this design and doubles the slew rate plus makes it symmetrical. LTP tail will be a resistor on it's own DC supply.
I was told a blind listening test was done with real instruments as control. The real instruments did not do very well. I can believe it. Piano should not fool anyone . It's low level power is hard to fake. Voice also. Drums might fool you as might a cello. Violin should be more obvious but might fool some. That fooling is it might sound too much like a valve amp.
Yes, second order distortion gives that "sweet tubey" sound. It is often "magical" compared to clinical sound. But distortion is distortion. When everything else EQUIVALENT, then lower distortion will always sound better. But like you mentioned, distortion is not the only thing. Often there are trade-offs.
TRADE-OFF; understand this, and nobody should claim that THD is more important than what the subjectivists can hear or prefer. No need to call the subjectivists prefer distortion, prefer noise, prefer IMD.
Use intelligence. Being an objectivist doesn't make one intelligent.
In a forum like this, often some people think that being an objectivist, stating advanced terminology in Physics and Math, referring to the legend, challenging the subjectivists, etc., etc. will make them look smart. No! It has nothing to do with that.
Thought experiment: imagine a test where a subject has to decide whether two colours are identical, but where the two colours are not shown side by side, but in sequential order. Everyone will agree that in this test, there will be a threshold of detectability, beyond which colours will be judged to be the same, whereas in reality they are different. When shown side by side, however, the difference is likely to become visible. In other words, there is a visible difference, but the sequential test doesn't bring it out.
Now an analogy. ABX testing in audio, by necessity, is sequential. It therefore seems probable, that diffences that are there, will not be discerneable through this kind of testing, although they are in and by themselves audible. It would just need a different test to bring them out. However, since we physically cannot compare two different audio streams simultaneously, we cannot develop a test protocol that would pass scientific muster. So there we are.
Now an analogy. ABX testing in audio, by necessity, is sequential. It therefore seems probable, that diffences that are there, will not be discerneable through this kind of testing, although they are in and by themselves audible. It would just need a different test to bring them out. However, since we physically cannot compare two different audio streams simultaneously, we cannot develop a test protocol that would pass scientific muster. So there we are.
Edit: This applies to the non scientific tests done by lots here to.
If the memory is short (and we know it is very short a few sec max) use short samples and fast switching.
Last edited:
I don't think objectivists are saying .01 sounds better than .08.
What they are saying is: don't tell us that .08 sounds better because of some unknown reason that has not been discovered yet.
There are too many snake oil attempts to explain why a higher distortion amp sounds better, and some of the circuits floating around are abysmal. Don't also claim zero feedback is better than feedback without some kind of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
Science tells us we do like a bit of low order harmonics - is sounds euphonic. Guess what? Zero global feedback amps have higher levels of distortion - and if you design them right, it's low order as well.
I am afraid claims that lower distortion amps sound better than higher distortion ones also does nog stand up to scrutiny - and scrutiny does mean a DBT.
Similarly, all this sub-ppm stuff on the grounds that it sounds better is also misguided. There's deaf too much emphasis on this in the forum, and I sim afraid the result is overly complex designs that, as a result, usually don't get built. Keep is simple, and spend the effort where it counts: avoiding big mistakes.
What they are saying is: don't tell us that .08 sounds better because of some unknown reason that has not been discovered yet.
There are too many snake oil attempts to explain why a higher distortion amp sounds better, and some of the circuits floating around are abysmal. Don't also claim zero feedback is better than feedback without some kind of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
Science tells us we do like a bit of low order harmonics - is sounds euphonic. Guess what? Zero global feedback amps have higher levels of distortion - and if you design them right, it's low order as well.
I am afraid claims that lower distortion amps sound better than higher distortion ones also does nog stand up to scrutiny - and scrutiny does mean a DBT.
Similarly, all this sub-ppm stuff on the grounds that it sounds better is also misguided. There's deaf too much emphasis on this in the forum, and I sim afraid the result is overly complex designs that, as a result, usually don't get built. Keep is simple, and spend the effort where it counts: avoiding big mistakes.
Last edited:
There's a lot of gray area between just shouting something that seems improbable at the face of it, without any substantiation and with a track record of same, and a full-blown scientific investigation program.
As I said before, if there are details about a claim, about how he/she came to that conclusion, indicating that the guy/gal knows what he/she is doing, backed up by a reasoning why it would be true, and possibly with other situations that show that the effect does not show up with a super duper part, etc; that would give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about that claim, and might drive me to check it out myself.
But let's be fair, there are often claims where it is clear that the guy has no clue and that it is unlikely that the 'test' even happened. You can't with dry eyes expect me to take such a claim serious.
Jan
But that would also mean that in 'normal' listening to different system we would also not be able to hear a difference. ALL listening is sequential.
Jan
That's a very interesting point. How about four mono systems, with a four-track source, carrying the instruments of a string quartet? People could listen and perhaps (???) identify some difference between the sound of the 'cello and the viola etc. The four instruments would have to be recorded completely 'dry' (close-miked in an acoustically dead environment) and the listening room would provide the reverberation acoustics.
Hi,
If cables x and y share the same constants and the only variable is the type of metal then what could be the cause of the difference between the two?
Cheers,
The metal.
Now if someone could provide some proof, then I could change my mind about it.
The problem is that the crappy PC based CD recorder will modify the signal, reducing the content which is to be compared. Not that I'm surprised, given that they cost all of $7 in bulk, and that from famous names in audio, like Samsung.
As data recorders, they work just fine, but as audio recorders? Remember, in case of audio they have an additional chore, and that is to turn an analog into a digital signal. Would you really take something like that as your reference?
The coolest test is nulling, but people seem to be scared of null tests to the point where it's touted as being "too difficult" to do properly, which is an interesting sentiment from a group of individuals clearly capable of doing much more difficult tasks, like operate an oscilloscope or design an amplifier from scratch.
Then the second complaint will undoubtedly be "there's stuff going on which the computer can't record" which makes it seem as if the absolutely ridiculous claim that speakers are more linear than something like a Focusrite Scarlet external sound card is being made.
Then, we seem to be getting hung up on the difference between, say, 0.07% THD vs 0.1%, which at least personally, I'm very careful to use terms like "below the threshold of audibility" of which both these would fall. There should be no finger pointing and drawing of conclusions when the audibility of either is zero. It makes no difference if people seem to prefer a higher distortion amplifier when even the higher distortion unit is still perfectly linear in it's audible operating range.
We should start a special edition of "Punked" where we secretly replace fancy amplifiers and cables with stuff like Behringer amps and radio shack cables, just to see how many days or months it takes for the victim to realize a change has been made, presumably not until the secret wires are discovered for the hidden trick gear. Or, an even funnier test, bring the replacement gear to the person's room and pretend to hook it up, then watch the person fall all over themselves talking crap about it, and pointing out all it's flaws, only to reveal that no change has been made.
This is a really fun video, I hope everyone who hasn't seen it can take the time to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=...feature=player_detailpage&v=BYTlN6wjcvQ#t=111
- Status
- Not open for further replies.