John,
Don't exert yourself trying to reason with people who can't be bothered to understand that it's not an on/off switch--one feedback loop and the whole thing is unlistenable--it's a continual process of degradation. AJ appears to be one of many who think they score points by "Well, I guess I showed you!" rhetorical flourishes rather than listening. Or thinking for that matter. It's more satisfying to them emotionally to be online trolls than actually reason the whole thing through.
I'm always amused by people who think they can get something for nothing; that's there's no price to be paid. Where I come from there's an old saying that these people appear never to have heard of: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Grey
Don't exert yourself trying to reason with people who can't be bothered to understand that it's not an on/off switch--one feedback loop and the whole thing is unlistenable--it's a continual process of degradation. AJ appears to be one of many who think they score points by "Well, I guess I showed you!" rhetorical flourishes rather than listening. Or thinking for that matter. It's more satisfying to them emotionally to be online trolls than actually reason the whole thing through.
I'm always amused by people who think they can get something for nothing; that's there's no price to be paid. Where I come from there's an old saying that these people appear never to have heard of: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Grey
I recently had my notso-trusty Sony SCD-777ES upgraded to the Vacuum State level 6. Revisiting the Sheffield CD's (!) demonstrated (again) just how well Sheffield did. I assume the cutting head driver had negative feedback, and my Bryston 4B SST certainly does, but even under these 'orrible 'andicaps the virtues of the FB-less VS mods and the Sheffield mixerless recording chain shine nonetheless.
{Why CD? The 777 is simply better than my Scout/Benz Glider, pleasant though that is.}
Not sure why I wrote this, except that I don't like snarky...
{Why CD? The 777 is simply better than my Scout/Benz Glider, pleasant though that is.}
Not sure why I wrote this, except that I don't like snarky...
I don't get the vehemence that is coming out as a result of criticizing Charles Hansen's article. Sorry Mr. Curl and Mr. Wurcer, but just because Mr. Hansen is a brilliant designer with undisputable credentials and decades of experience doesn't mean that he should be held as being immune from criticism when he does something patently absurd.
I read his article in Stereophile and was so appalled by it's lack of perspective and blind declarations of psuedoscience-as-fact that I came very close to writing a rebuttal letter myself. In the end I decided that, for someone of Mr. Hansen's calibre, the embarassment of having this writing widely published is probably bad enough without having his nose rubbed in it too.
I know I'm just setting myself up here as a target for abuse, but even great men have bad moments, and because people pay great heed to great people it becomes imperative that they be clearly called to task when they err, lest lesser people begin blindly following their poor example.
I'll be putting on my flame retardent suit now!
Terry
I read his article in Stereophile and was so appalled by it's lack of perspective and blind declarations of psuedoscience-as-fact that I came very close to writing a rebuttal letter myself. In the end I decided that, for someone of Mr. Hansen's calibre, the embarassment of having this writing widely published is probably bad enough without having his nose rubbed in it too.
I know I'm just setting myself up here as a target for abuse, but even great men have bad moments, and because people pay great heed to great people it becomes imperative that they be clearly called to task when they err, lest lesser people begin blindly following their poor example.
I'll be putting on my flame retardent suit now!
Terry
john curl said:
Hi John,
As much as we may disagree, I will never tire of your wry sense of humor
.I have received your email containing my original 7-page reply to your joint letter. I stand corrected. Seeing my letter did indeed jog my memory (which obviously did need jogging). I no longer doubt that your joint letter did indeed exist, and am glad you found both.
I'll look forward to seeing your letter, and do think that it will be useful for those interested to see both letters and make up their own minds.
You certainly have my permission to post my letter.
Cheers,
Bob
metalman said:I don't get the vehemence that is coming out as a result of criticizing Charles Hansen's article. Sorry Mr. Curl and Mr. Wurcer, but just because Mr. Hansen is a brilliant designer with undisputable credentials and decades of experience doesn't mean that he should be held as being immune from criticism when he does something patently absurd.
I read his article in Stereophile and was so appalled by it's lack of perspective and blind declarations of psuedoscience-as-fact that I came very close to writing a rebuttal letter myself. In the end I decided that, for someone of Mr. Hansen's calibre, the embarassment of having this writing widely published is probably bad enough without having his nose rubbed in it too.
I know I'm just setting myself up here as a target for abuse, but even great men have bad moments, and because people pay great heed to great people it becomes imperative that they be clearly called to task when they err, lest lesser people begin blindly following their poor example.
I'll be putting on my flame retardent suit now!
Terry
Hi Terry,
Thanks for helping us get back to the topic of this thread.
Cheers,
Bob
This thre4ad has morphed into a feedback/dirty sand/op-amp frre for all.
Great.
I think AJinFLA is right.
There are few (very few) recordings where there is no feedback in the chain. Seems to me also that the closer you go back to the source material, the more feedback gets applied (i.e. around the small signal stages). We cannot escape using it (wisely) to make our audio world a bit better.
However, it is not people like Bob et al that are unreasonable or lack a sense of logic, but the group that insists on claimimg that f/back degrades sound. They see th e worlds through rose tinted glasses. And the position of these people seems to change every time they get evidence to the contrary or they are asked to prove a statement.
As I said in another thread when it can be shown that most amplifiers that receive good reviews run without feedback, we can take that as a sign that that it is bad and degrades the sound.
Its the same argument as the dirty sand one. Its not based on fact.
Don't get me started on power cables, gold plated fuses . . . .
Great.
I think AJinFLA is right.
There are few (very few) recordings where there is no feedback in the chain. Seems to me also that the closer you go back to the source material, the more feedback gets applied (i.e. around the small signal stages). We cannot escape using it (wisely) to make our audio world a bit better.
However, it is not people like Bob et al that are unreasonable or lack a sense of logic, but the group that insists on claimimg that f/back degrades sound. They see th e worlds through rose tinted glasses. And the position of these people seems to change every time they get evidence to the contrary or they are asked to prove a statement.
As I said in another thread when it can be shown that most amplifiers that receive good reviews run without feedback, we can take that as a sign that that it is bad and degrades the sound.
Its the same argument as the dirty sand one. Its not based on fact.
Don't get me started on power cables, gold plated fuses . . . .
Hi John and Bob
Can you take your dispute offline please.
The theme seen in this thread seems to spill over from thread to thread on occasion. I suspect that by not publicly airing all these alleged wrongs the value of and the motivation for doing so would be infinitely less. Your both gents, please act like it.
Pre-emptive warning; If this thread continues down the path its started on then the moderation team will close it. We have little time and nor do we take any pleasure in having to watch a 'hot' thread making sure everything stays civil. This is something we can do without.
For the record, I find it extremely amusing how so many people are so able to miss a point completely. In my original letter to John Atkinson I was making two points:
a) Contrary to the assertion made by JA in his report on the new National op-amps, there has *never* been any correlation made between low measured distortion and high quality sound.
b) Using op-amps in audio circuits is a good way to save costs, but they cannot compete against a well-designed discrete circuit.
Mr. Cordell's published letter did not address the first point at all, and actually *agreed* with my second point. So why all the fuss?
There actually was a giant hole in my argument against using op-amps in expensive, high-performance audio gear. The only person that caught it was SY. In this thread he (slyly, so slyly that nobody seems to have noticed) pointed out that one of the main arguments I made regarding the deficiencies of using op-amps instead of discrete circuits could just as validly be made with regards to using discrete transistors instead of tubes!
Remember what I said? IC's offer lower cost, smaller size, and lower power consumption, but *not* better sound. Well, the tube aficionado would say the exact same thing about discrete transistors! And do you know what? I wouldn't be able to argue with him....
The only real difference between the two situations is that both the tube designer and the discrete transistor designer need to know *something* about circuit design. On the other hand, the person packaging IC's into a product doesn't need to know much of anything regarding circuit design. And don't even get me started on the people who package ICE modules into an amplifier....
Cheers,
Charles Hansen
a) Contrary to the assertion made by JA in his report on the new National op-amps, there has *never* been any correlation made between low measured distortion and high quality sound.
b) Using op-amps in audio circuits is a good way to save costs, but they cannot compete against a well-designed discrete circuit.
Mr. Cordell's published letter did not address the first point at all, and actually *agreed* with my second point. So why all the fuss?
There actually was a giant hole in my argument against using op-amps in expensive, high-performance audio gear. The only person that caught it was SY. In this thread he (slyly, so slyly that nobody seems to have noticed) pointed out that one of the main arguments I made regarding the deficiencies of using op-amps instead of discrete circuits could just as validly be made with regards to using discrete transistors instead of tubes!
Remember what I said? IC's offer lower cost, smaller size, and lower power consumption, but *not* better sound. Well, the tube aficionado would say the exact same thing about discrete transistors! And do you know what? I wouldn't be able to argue with him....
The only real difference between the two situations is that both the tube designer and the discrete transistor designer need to know *something* about circuit design. On the other hand, the person packaging IC's into a product doesn't need to know much of anything regarding circuit design. And don't even get me started on the people who package ICE modules into an amplifier....
Cheers,
Charles Hansen
Charles Hansen said:
FWIW, agree or not that's pretty much what I got from revisiting the copy on my couch. That and you prefer discrete passive components as well. You missed with the Halcro thing though. Interesting no one thought to ask for a link to your original letter.
jacco: It took a couple non-reads to catch it. Funny!
Charles,
with all due respect, can you provide some support for your statement "Using op-amps in audio circuits is a good way to save costs, but they cannot compete against a well-designed discrete circuit."
Compared to a circuit implemented with discrete devices on a PC board, the transistors on a common silicon substrate can be matched much more closely, path lengths between devices are much shorter and therefore much less susceptible to noise and the effects of unintended parasitic capacitances, the effects of solder joints and impurities do not exist, and so on.
All transistors are effectively variations on the same "dirty sand" theme, whether they are in discrete packages or on a common substrate. More accurately, transistors are extraordinarily pure silicon crystals to which precisely controlled amounts of other elements are added to create the necessary P and N regions to form the transistor. The P and N implant characteristics and geometries can be controlled with astonishing precision. So long as one is designing with transistors, I don't see how sharing a common silicon substrate necessarily brings a disadvantage.
My day job involves cramming 100s of millions of transistors onto a thumbnail sized piece of silicon, some of which operate at Ghz rates, so I know a fair amount about the silicon fundamentals. However, I'm not skilled in the art and science of audio design, so I'm looking for education. So, can you provide some engineering and technical argument to support your claim about the superiority of a discrete implementation?
If National gave you a design team, could you put the advantages of integration to work (tightly controlled transistor characteristics, low noise, etc.) to beat a (your) discrete design?
thanks,
Mightydub
with all due respect, can you provide some support for your statement "Using op-amps in audio circuits is a good way to save costs, but they cannot compete against a well-designed discrete circuit."
Compared to a circuit implemented with discrete devices on a PC board, the transistors on a common silicon substrate can be matched much more closely, path lengths between devices are much shorter and therefore much less susceptible to noise and the effects of unintended parasitic capacitances, the effects of solder joints and impurities do not exist, and so on.
All transistors are effectively variations on the same "dirty sand" theme, whether they are in discrete packages or on a common substrate. More accurately, transistors are extraordinarily pure silicon crystals to which precisely controlled amounts of other elements are added to create the necessary P and N regions to form the transistor. The P and N implant characteristics and geometries can be controlled with astonishing precision. So long as one is designing with transistors, I don't see how sharing a common silicon substrate necessarily brings a disadvantage.
My day job involves cramming 100s of millions of transistors onto a thumbnail sized piece of silicon, some of which operate at Ghz rates, so I know a fair amount about the silicon fundamentals. However, I'm not skilled in the art and science of audio design, so I'm looking for education. So, can you provide some engineering and technical argument to support your claim about the superiority of a discrete implementation?
If National gave you a design team, could you put the advantages of integration to work (tightly controlled transistor characteristics, low noise, etc.) to beat a (your) discrete design?
thanks,
Mightydub
PMA said:
A typical opamp like the LM4562 has 140 db open loop gain.
http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM4562.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.