People are on this forum because they like building or designing audio equipment, or helping others with doing so. Whether you actually believe that your equipment sounds better than the average equipment is not relevant, although I can imagine that people who do believe that are more motivated.
Personally I like unconventional designs that are in some way more elegant than the usual designs. Hence I'm listening to a non-switching class-AB amplifier with class-AB bias loop and a DC bias loop with second-order Butterworth response, rather than Self's boring "blameless" stuff. But I doubt very much whether I would hear any difference in a blind test.
For what it's worth, when I do believe that I might hear a difference, I do double blind tests. For example, when I added super tweeters to my DIY loudspeaker boxes, I first connected them via an ABX switch box to see if they were worth the trouble (which they were). The valve DAC I designed has ABX testing functionality built in; you can put it in surprise mode and have it randomly select one of its three sigma-delta algorithms and one of its filters. It has a non-volatile memory that stores the surprise setting so you can switch it off and continue listening later if you like. I don't hear any difference, though, except in the noise floor at very high volumes, and I made the design so expensive that there are only very few people considering to build it.
Last edited:
I am not in any camp. I try to keep an open mind, particularly when it comes to my ability to hear differences that are so small that it's theoretically impossible.
If you are DIY-ing then the aim should be to improve understanding.
A question: How do you set/lower the amount of feedback applied in an amp?
Another question: What else changes beyond just increasing distortion?
If you are DIY-ing then the aim should be to improve understanding.
A question: How do you set/lower the amount of feedback applied in an amp?
Another question: What else changes beyond just increasing distortion?
By the way, from an objectivist's point of view, if an ABX test shows that there is an audible difference between two amplifiers, that means that at least one of them is no good. An objectivist would then want to find out which one is the culprit and to modify it such that it starts to sound just like any other amplifier.
Why Let an Amplifier Sound Good when You can Force it to ?
I would like to suggest some possible thread title revisions:
1. Am I being deceived? Circle Yes or No
2. If you aren’t a retired EE or have mental health issues, throw your diyaudio membership into the ocean and relieve yourself from bondage!
3. “Does an amplifier have Buddha Nature?” “No.”
4. Can the people with PhDs stop quoting AES papers so I feel a little less intimidated?
5. Wait, I thought I could trust that Nelson Pass guy!? He looks so jolly....
6. Give me your thoughts on amplifier design while also unintentionally revealing to me how long it’s been since you last got laid.
I’m open to suggestions as well.
I would like to suggest some possible thread title revisions:
1. Am I being deceived? Circle Yes or No
2. If you aren’t a retired EE or have mental health issues, throw your diyaudio membership into the ocean and relieve yourself from bondage!
3. “Does an amplifier have Buddha Nature?” “No.”
4. Can the people with PhDs stop quoting AES papers so I feel a little less intimidated?
5. Wait, I thought I could trust that Nelson Pass guy!? He looks so jolly....
6. Give me your thoughts on amplifier design while also unintentionally revealing to me how long it’s been since you last got laid.
I’m open to suggestions as well.
Last edited:
Let me point you to one of the largest double blind studies in history and it’s legacy and perhaps you will reconsider that statement.
http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i1246.full.pdf
Revisionist History Podcast
True, but you have to bear in mind that not everyone desires faithful music reproduction. Some prefer something else. That is fine, provided that they don't try to pretend otherwise and claim that their preferred distortion is somehow more faithful than an attempt at genuine hi-fi.suzyj said:
I believe I read somewhere that Peter Walker (Quad) claimed never to listen to his designs while developing them. I guess that makes him a 'not serious' designer, according to you.gabdx said:
sure he listened to them after quite for some time and had an audition review panel before producing and releasing the model to the stores otherwise this is stupid.
The public is not dumb, it will choose the best price/look with less compromises for his musical taste if any.
http://reocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6722/pwint1.txt
The public may not be dumb, but is easily seduced by marketing.
Why Let an Amplifier Sound Good when You can Force it to ?
That one of the largest, well vetted double blind studies in history got it wrong, then proceeded to influence public policy and spread misinformation to the public on one of the leading causes of death in the US for the next 40 years or so? I guess you didn’t read it.
I’m not against blind or double blind testing. I consider myself a realist- don’t read that as I’m in the magical thinking subjectivist category. I lean toward objectivist values. However, my point is that the objectivists yield just as flawed conclusions along with the subjectivists, just due to different reasons. One is not pure and rational while the other infantile and misguided.
I don’t see one or the other as the beacon of truth.
Who paid for something or what an entity has to gain or lose by the results is a statistically relevant indicator of the ultimate findings, for example.
If you want to know the truth, follow the money.
50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat : The Two-Way : NPR
A lot of vitriol is slung at marketing folks by the science minded here, curiously omitting the fact that scientists are regularly on the dole as well.
That one of the largest, well vetted double blind studies in history got it wrong, then proceeded to influence public policy and spread misinformation to the public on one of the leading causes of death in the US for the next 40 years or so? I guess you didn’t read it.
I’m not against blind or double blind testing. I consider myself a realist- don’t read that as I’m in the magical thinking subjectivist category. I lean toward objectivist values. However, my point is that the objectivists yield just as flawed conclusions along with the subjectivists, just due to different reasons. One is not pure and rational while the other infantile and misguided.
I don’t see one or the other as the beacon of truth.
Who paid for something or what an entity has to gain or lose by the results is a statistically relevant indicator of the ultimate findings, for example.
If you want to know the truth, follow the money.
50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat : The Two-Way : NPR
A lot of vitriol is slung at marketing folks by the science minded here, curiously omitting the fact that scientists are regularly on the dole as well.
Last edited:
It has to be, and it always is, feedback or not. The amp itself always works open loop. The result of the feedback is that the effective input signal between the two input pins is exactly right in amplitude and phase, to get the required output voltage.
We even can tell with accuracy what that input signal between the pins is at any time: it is Vout divided by the amp open loop gain. No more, no less. Exact.
I second Mark Whitney's terms 'beauty and elegance'. Nature at its best!
Jan
Last edited:
Fair enough. About three months ago I was at a demonstration of an open-loop directly-heated triode amplifier. I don't believe for a second that it is in any way more accurate than a good feedback amplifier, but it definitely sounded quite nice. On top of that, I liked the yellow light coming out of the thoriated tungsten filaments of the output valves and the beautiful wooden enclosure of the amplifier.
Based on what I've read about double-blind amplifier tests, I believe that gain matching and frequency response flatness are far more likely to cause audible differences than harmonic distortion, with a possible exception for amplifiers with unusually high distortion. There are people who can hear a 0.2 dB gain difference under double-blind conditions, but they tend to perceive it as a difference in sound quality rather than volume. Many amplifiers with 0.0X % distortion have a gain that varies far more than 0.2 dB over the audio band, making proper gain matching over the full band impossible.
Having read several of your threads, I always wonder why you have such a strong preference for the most unlikely sounding hypotheses. For example, your subjective preference for non-oversampling DACs without reconstruction filter could simply be due to the slight treble roll-off of the sin(x)/x response of the zeroth order hold, or due to the fact that DACs without interpolation filter have no intersample overshoot problem. Still, the only hypotheses you seem to take into consideration are those involving audible ultrasonics.
Of course, excuses for blind testing=not hearing a differernce, and the stupidest "fact" I've heard since listening to Donald Trump.
I think it is the quest for personal achievement satisfaction is what brings people to attempt amp designs with no more than 0.000000% distortion.
I have recently looking more towards the ultimate wave whipper that beats the cone into compliance with the sonic compression variations of a symphony's multitude of different harmonics.
Rock and Pop type music isn't much of a challenge. You can make rock music with a TTL chip.
I have recently looking more towards the ultimate wave whipper that beats the cone into compliance with the sonic compression variations of a symphony's multitude of different harmonics.
Rock and Pop type music isn't much of a challenge. You can make rock music with a TTL chip.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.