Was that a battle of amplifier damping? I know that most audience will have high preference on bass performance.
BTW, we're talking about amps that can be considered as the BEST amp in the world, not just a decent amp.
I realize that my taste and the way I value sound is different than the majority (Well, you know the bell curve theory, and who are in the 10% and 90% percentiles). But I still believe that such amp will never be on the best amp category. Third place below Classe? I don't even know if Classe has a good amp.
ooooo-k. so it's the "audio mantras" game. cool, no problem.
I'm really-really curious about one thing. how can the perfectionists survive in a world where the music which is recorded according to their philosophical beliefs is so rare? or... maybe this is really not about enjoying music at all?
anyway. I'm outta here.
I'm not sure I got your point. But I think it is about taste developed by experience.
Most of my audio friends (they are not audiophiles, they are just old people building and selling audio stuffs), and especially the low level consumers (those who buy the stuffs),they really like bass. And you know, at low level there is nothing but a boomy and boxy 300Hz peak. I can understand why they like it, because we all like it. It is just some of us expect "different" sound based on experience. Without options from experience, we will all like to hear that boombox.
At higher level, we can see that the majority prefer the sound of active systems, class D, etc.
I think the key here is that high end stuffs are supposed to be produced to be sold to niche market. So it is fine if the characteristics of the product doesn't meet the taste of the majority.
I meant:
you do agree that at the recording side, at some point there was an op amp. maybe a 5532. more likely, many of them. and some DC blocking caps that cause phase shift. and, more likely, many of them, which causes the phase shift to accumulate.
isn't it a contradiction to listen to through op amp-free gear, while at the same time music was recorded with lesser gear? the question then becomes: what do you exactly want your gear to reveal? the flaws on the recording? it's accumulated phase-shift? its op amp distortion? what do you listen for?
you said earlier that you prefer amps having low phase errors up to MHz range. you do agree though that, as basic signal theory tells us, you need to have a flat magnitude response up to tens of MHzs in order to achieve that? what amp satisfies that criteria? Spectral amps are advertised to extend in the MHz range, but they're known to refuse to subject them to reviews, because sooner or later someone might measure them.
I know what you mean, few people really know real bass. it's supposed to be there only when it's there. and it isn't supposed to be peaky or boomy. real bass is just low, without being intrusive. a favorite bass test of mine is "Time" by Joe Satriani. around 0:18 there's a short rumble, likely very low in frequency. but go listen to that song on one of those "thin sounding" systems. if the system is really accurate, the rumble will be there. although that with some times of music it will sound thin.
one thing which I hate (I'm politically-correctness challenged) is the music selection of some audiophiles. girl with guitar is not bad in itself, I do listed to some Tracy Chapman (but her music is different from the majority). the same with soft jazz. but it's my impression that many a folk only listen to it because it's supposed to be the ultimate audiophile music. trouble being that there's a lot of very good, innovative audiophile music. I sometimes wonder, what is the point in investing in good gear only to restrict yourself to the most uninventive music, only because "some dealer uses it for demos"?
one other thing I agree with is that many audio guys seem to have never been exposed to good gear. applies to diyaudio too. I often read "this amp sounds good", and I wonder "so... are we dealing with a fanboy here?". one perspective-changing thread I read was over at the "Pass" forums. poor guy built the shoddiest F5 one can imagine, although lots of people warned about incorrect implementation choices. guy even added me to his ignore list because I once dared to ask a question which, to him, seemed to question his belief system.
( forgot to unsubscribe so, well, I'm still not outta here
)
Last edited:
I don't know, but I have stated my belief many times, that the real problem may not be in the recorded material but in how that material is amplified through amps and speaker (during playback).
I don't really depend on theory. I just rely on my ears. I just build and build and build and make conclusion from experience.
Yeah, I like to listen to music and song. My criteria is as simple as the most enjoyable experience. I don't care if it is not hi-fi. But you know what? When you have a great appreciation for music and art, only the greatest singers and musicians can attract you more. And thus a good system is supposed to be able to display how good or bad the singer and musician really are.
As for lady with guitar, well everyone's system has limitation. Isn't it normal to avoid music that sound bad in your system? Rock for example, has speed that cannot be produced by most tube amps, has electric guitar recording that will bleed your ears when played through audiophile fullrange speakers.
It's only the sweetness of female voice that is relatively very easy to recreate. Then peak in the midrange will make acoustic guitar to sound more realistic.
could be. but I always try to remember that all mixing/mastering decisions are based on what is heard through D/A converters, amps, speakers in real rooms.
it's you who stated:
and now you're saying that you only care what your ears tell you. fine, I too only care about what my ears tell me. but I'm not aware of anyone's ability to measure phase response using the ear(s) alone. my ear/brain system is not able to tell me "this system has more than 2 degrees of phase shift at 80kHz".Jay said:But I believe that high frequency performance is the key to high end sound. I prefer the amplifier system that has good phase performance up to MHz. Tweeter also has to be good up to at least 40KHz
please show me one amp that has good phase response in the MHz region. one, not two. and tell me how you arrived to the conclusion that its phase response in the Mhz region is good.
otoh, it's easily measurable that most gear has phase response problems in the low region because of the DC blocking caps. Siegfried Linkwitz (let me guess... you're going to tell me that his speakers are crap
) thinks that you can hear group delay below 100Hz.simple music sounds acceptable on almost every system, I agree.Jay said:
There are people who think that science is not yet successful to explain some phenomena in audio. Those who cannot think out of the box will disagree with this and mention all the science he thinks he knows very well.
I wasn't saying that I can hear an amp that has peak beyond 100kHz. I meant I listen to a lot of things. I listen to opamps, all kinds. Now I'm not saying that opamp is bad, but I never been satisfied with opamps.
I listen to single ended, symmetrical, tube, solid state, everything. And I also measure, simulate, design my own amps, and try to draw correlation between science and what I hear. By doing this I can consistently satisfy my ears. No more surprise. From simulation I will have gross prediction that an amp will sound good and I build it and I have no surprise.
you are misrepresenting my point of view. you are making it sound like I meant something which I didn't. I did not imply any of what you said above. maybe my wording wasn't good enough, but I believe it was. you are just repeating an old cliche which everyone heard before: measurements don't tell everything, but that does not have anything to do with what I wrote.
I will try again.
you clearly said that you need amps that have low phase errors in the MHz range. this "MHz" range... where did it come from?
AND you're ignoring my question; give me one example of an amp that satisfies this phase criterion.
Last edited:
It is just a language to say that I will try to get perfect phase as high as possible, even it has to span beyond common sense. Same as slew rate.
Of course I have heard and built many such amps. That's why I want them, even tho I realize that there may be no correlation at all between phase and slew rate with the good sound that I hear. But who care, I trust my ears. It's better than having to build opamp-based amplifiers, something that I know will disapoint me, from experience. Those PA amps above
Actually all conversations require mind reading. It is just some people do it harder and some do it less
Jay said:But I believe that high frequency performance is the key to high end sound. I prefer the amplifier system that has good phase performance up to MHz. Tweeter also has to be good up to at least 40KHz
in online communication, where the "bandwidth" is lower, no mind reading should be involved. especially in a technical forum. and since no-one has easy means to get an idea about each person's background. for instance, with some opamps, decent phase up to MHz regions is possible. how was I to know exactly what you meant?Actually all conversations require mind reading. It is just some people do it harder and some do it less
and this "some people are better at this and that" poking will get you nowhere
assuming that you indeed mean to get somewhere, which I doubt.this time I'm really outta here.
I think you are in doubt about what you really want, being here, or outta here
You will miss many incoming interesting posts about tweaking, one of your favorite subject 
To be able to recognize this clinical opamp sound, one must be familiar with the less compressed natural sound since the beginning.
Start with the simplest setup, a source (probably TT, but not important) driving simple SET or class-A amp, driving fullrange speaker. All components must be "audiophile" quality (the premise is that simple thing must be perfect to be not too simple). Start with small Watts so perfection is easier to achieved.
What we have (the positive parts) with such simple setup is:
1. sonic of fullrange speaker
2. low level reverberation of crossoverless speaker
3. naturalness and directness of simple circuits
4. sweetness of class-A or SET (harmonic structure)
5. soundstage of fullrange speaker plus simple amp (exaggerated)
Now we want to bring this simple setup to a higher level, trying to add things it doesn't have, without removing the goodness too much.
We want details a fullrange cannot provide
We want no peaky sound of fullrange
We want quality bass a fullrange (or 2-way) cannot provide.
We want more power to feed to the new speaker.
We want less distortion but maintaining a good distortion structure.
Above all, we want the same ENJOYMENT/SATISFACTION! (believe me, those audiophiles with fullrange and small SET enjoy music more than audiophiles with Bryston amps)
If above is done. I believe that everyone will be familiar with the clinical sound of opamp-based designs (lets say the design, not the opamp, but what's the difference anyway), darlington-based designs, and similar sound.
Remember that if our big system doesn't have what that simple system has, we will never know if something is missing by the addition of anything such as a bad opamp.
Try be honest with ourselves. Do we enjoy our system? Do we listen our system frequent enough? Once we get used to this I think it is easy to know if we enjoy one system more than the other. And this is the most critical measure of my system performance, not soundstage, THD, or such.
OK, so now we'll need a definition of "clinical" from you. You appear to be talking about a type of distortion here, or is that the "simple" system is adding a nice, cuddly layer of "sweet" distortion to the raw, recorded sound ...
The best sound I heard last time around was from the biggest Bryston available - remember, this is "new" Bryston, not "old" ...
Like you, I want to enjoy my system - and audio that adds syrup to the mix don't cut it for me ...
We're different. Imo, any system adds syrup to the mix. I prefer a delicious one.
In general, complex power supply regulation will give good performance numbers but "clinical" sound. OTOH a simple regulation tends to give worse performance numbers but "natural" sound. Our job is to understand why, then find better solution.
LM7815 IC is complex inside, and the sound is terrible. OTOH, LM317 sounds better but much more noisy (less regulated). But we don't have to pick the 7815 just to get a good noise performance, we pick other solution (e.g. shunt regulation). That's the analogy.
Opamp is complex device that is designed for wide purposes, usually not optimal for certain purpose. Every amplifying stage has distortion. You don't want extra stage that you don't need.
And there are a lot of distortion types, not just THD (which depends on frequency and spl btw).
There's nothing wrong with being "clinical". Problem is being not fun to listen to. Boring. Makes you ask yourself why you have to spend your time and money just to get such experience listening to such system
Okay, it seems you're using the J. Gordon Holt definition of 'clinical': "Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly ( Ho-hum. Reproduction which evokes boredom and indifference)". Well, you're talking about distorted sound, not "pristine" in the true sense of the word -- you may not have experienced it, but it's certainly possible. Trouble is, most people hear "boring" sound and can't translate that into meaning that the system is distorting; distortion doesn't have to be obvious, it can be very subtle, but do just as much damage in terms of turning someone off listening to it ...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.