traderbam said:
The system had dual oversized french monoblock 60W tube amplifiers (don't recall the manufacturer), polished metal chassis, no cover, driving TL JM Labs two way boxes. An equally hughe JM Labs subwoofer (dual 15" drivers, down firing) with a digital equalizer in front to adjust room response. Preamplifier if I don't recall wrong was a custom made tube job, and CD drive a large expensive looking unit. Massive cabling and overall installation completed the setup. I frankly tried to pay not too much attention to details to avoid biasing in one direction or other.
On purpose I brought a couple of CD's I was very familiar with, with a last listenting just hours before, to keep a fresh recolection. One of them (a Bach St Mathew Passion selection, DG, by Richter, Schreier, Fisher Diskau) I knew messy in some tracks in my setup and I wanted to know what was at fault. They sounded equally or worst at least for me.
My boxes are biamplified and built around a novel variation of error correction I have been working on now for over a year an a half, having applied for a patent. Drivers are Dayton reference series.
Rodolfo
Maybe this experiment is being approached from the wrong side. How about ripping to Red Book CD from a known and theoretically superior source such as DVD-Audio? The most realistic recording in my collection is the Teldec (3984-25254-9) release of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra under Hardoncourt performing Dvorak's 'New World'. It's a 2000 recording which unfortunately doesn't specify the source. Certainly there must be a hi-rez release somewhere which includes proof of peridgree.
BTW, there is an excellent stuff to compare formats, look here:
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_resolution_project/
No diyer or semi-pro-diyer will create better method.
P.S.: I have this disc.
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_resolution_project/
No diyer or semi-pro-diyer will create better method.
P.S.: I have this disc.
I'll second that.rdf said:
As to the question of whether it is "the masses or the iPod generation", I say it's the masses. I don't think human nature has changed and I don't think there is a difference in the proportion of individuals that are not enthusiasts, those that say they don't, and those that say they can't.
This is striking to me ".....For example, the stereo 24/192 jazz track not only greatly enhances the quality of the music as compared to the 16/44.1 CD, but it captures the live room in crystal-clear detail.” (mixonline.com, 2006)
Does this mean that 24/192 gives us back our low level detail? We may lose our LP flavour, but this appears worthy of serious consideration.
Sneak preview
As promised, here are first impressions from a respected audiophile with regards to my boxes. Further and much more exacting tests will be made as well as listening by others from the gang.
Regarding the boxes themseves, well .... pretty much #$%!. Definitely not a good idea as they are, meaning the overall geometry and aspect.
Regarding first listening impressions, he admitted to be expecting equally cr***y performance given aspect etc., in comparison with his U$ 40,000 setup. This was his great surprise.
For sure he noted some cabinet radiation, and a hint of veil, but nowhere traces of "solid state" sound. He was particularly astonished mid frequencies (voices, duos) came out so well for a combination of an 8" woofer and 1 1/8" tweeter, check that to the L-R electronic crossover, admittedly anyway a compromise at best.
He promised to devote as many hours as needed for me to learn and distinguish what he sees as objectionable, then it is up to me to find a solution if any.
And of course I have better start looking for a radically new box design, reducing width, increasing height and depth. In this department I am somewhat concerned with possible need for baffle step compensation - which I did not include and looks not necessary as they are now.
In all I came out pretty satisfied, I did not expect a crude bashing, but neither wanted a simple pat in the back. As it went, both the project and the evaluation look like moving in the rigth direction.
More comments probably next week.
Rodolfo
As promised, here are first impressions from a respected audiophile with regards to my boxes. Further and much more exacting tests will be made as well as listening by others from the gang.
Regarding the boxes themseves, well .... pretty much #$%!. Definitely not a good idea as they are, meaning the overall geometry and aspect.
Regarding first listening impressions, he admitted to be expecting equally cr***y performance given aspect etc., in comparison with his U$ 40,000 setup. This was his great surprise.
For sure he noted some cabinet radiation, and a hint of veil, but nowhere traces of "solid state" sound. He was particularly astonished mid frequencies (voices, duos) came out so well for a combination of an 8" woofer and 1 1/8" tweeter, check that to the L-R electronic crossover, admittedly anyway a compromise at best.
He promised to devote as many hours as needed for me to learn and distinguish what he sees as objectionable, then it is up to me to find a solution if any.
And of course I have better start looking for a radically new box design, reducing width, increasing height and depth. In this department I am somewhat concerned with possible need for baffle step compensation - which I did not include and looks not necessary as they are now.
In all I came out pretty satisfied, I did not expect a crude bashing, but neither wanted a simple pat in the back. As it went, both the project and the evaluation look like moving in the rigth direction.
More comments probably next week.
Rodolfo
AD 797 NE5534 vs. single pole comp discretes
.... output-inclusive single-pole compensation
or double-pole compensation ....
Exactly, mikeks!
This is why I didnt use my usual NE5534 setup
in my latest preamp built.
Not that using this terrificly cheap Op-Amp is something I dislike very much,
by now, I know precisely how to use it for great results
( have built stuff with it continiously since mid 1980-ies )
But this time, I thought, to my self:
Now!
Now this time,
is the time for some output-inclusive single-pole compensation.
And as I have recently bought a 100 pcs package ( a bargain price, too! )
of transistors with very high value of single-pole compensation
it was tempting to make this approach,
for once.
Glad to see that,
you, Mikeks,
Mr John Curl and me
are on the same track to audio sound perfectness
and final nirvana.
lineup
john curl said:
mikeks said:
With high ft transistors in small signal apps., you can build a discrete op amp.
with output-inclusive single-pole compensation, or double-pole compensation...
This should solve this 'problem'
.... output-inclusive single-pole compensation
or double-pole compensation ....
Exactly, mikeks!
This is why I didnt use my usual NE5534 setup
in my latest preamp built.
Not that using this terrificly cheap Op-Amp is something I dislike very much,
by now, I know precisely how to use it for great results
( have built stuff with it continiously since mid 1980-ies )
But this time, I thought, to my self:
Now!Now this time,
is the time for some output-inclusive single-pole compensation.
And as I have recently bought a 100 pcs package ( a bargain price, too! )
of transistors with very high value of single-pole compensation
it was tempting to make this approach,
for once.
Glad to see that,
you, Mikeks,
Mr John Curl and me
are on the same track to audio sound perfectness
and final nirvana.
lineup
Re: AD 797 NE5534 vs. single pole comp discretes
Should be interesting to learn what transistors are you talking about. I guess what you are meaning is high Ft.
That cannonical OpAmp based designs do not satisfy more demanding listeners is not new, and we do indeed have clues as to what is wrong.
Thermal feedback, inherently nonlinear differential input stage, internal dominant pole compensation and attendant phase issues, the effect of gross error result from differential input to be reverse distorted and attendant extensive harmonic and intermoudulation products - albeit at a very low level - to name a few gremlins. Most of them lacking in tube or well designed discrete implementations.
Except for the most demanding applications, well designed OpAmp based designs are currently more than capable, while low cost and conceptual simplicity leave little room for alternatives.
Which does not rule out better designs addressing the mentioned issues and others.
Will be very interested in learning about your work.
Rodolfo
lineup said:
Should be interesting to learn what transistors are you talking about. I guess what you are meaning is high Ft.
That cannonical OpAmp based designs do not satisfy more demanding listeners is not new, and we do indeed have clues as to what is wrong.
Thermal feedback, inherently nonlinear differential input stage, internal dominant pole compensation and attendant phase issues, the effect of gross error result from differential input to be reverse distorted and attendant extensive harmonic and intermoudulation products - albeit at a very low level - to name a few gremlins. Most of them lacking in tube or well designed discrete implementations.
Except for the most demanding applications, well designed OpAmp based designs are currently more than capable, while low cost and conceptual simplicity leave little room for alternatives.
Which does not rule out better designs addressing the mentioned issues and others.
Will be very interested in learning about your work.
Rodolfo
First and foremost I am not challenging anyones expertise or knowledge. It seems that some of the ******* constests are just that; I'm right and you're stupid because you don't know it. I have found a wealth of info on the net, and have found many DIFFERENT approaches to circuit topology as well as design theory. In regards to IMD, unwanted AM and FM on the signal, a look into RF amps and theory would explain alot of how to avoid and strip off unwanted byproducts. I thought to join this forum to learn, not read a bunch of professorial rantings. Could this argueing not be done by email; off the board? masterchief
It is not only about input filter, but more about PCB design and construction of the whole instrument .
IMHO this is the key factor ("how the Mhz affect the 20hz-20khz sound") of different sound of different opamps, cables, transistor circuits etc. Something that DIYers usually do not care about .
.IMHO this is the key factor ("how the Mhz affect the 20hz-20khz sound") of different sound of different opamps, cables, transistor circuits etc. Something that DIYers usually do not care about
.
Lumanauw, the reason you can hear differences but not see them on a scope is because of the limited resolution of a scope.
Noise in the MHz area might create new noise in the audible range. So avoiding high frequency noise creation is a good idea. But this doesn't entirely account for the sonic differences you cite.
Noise in the MHz area might create new noise in the audible range. So avoiding high frequency noise creation is a good idea. But this doesn't entirely account for the sonic differences you cite.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.