You have to define "ordinary" here. And please post any pointers you might have to ABX results involving the ncore, I am sure we are all interested!
Anyway, based on my own results the ncore is no better than other *good* amps, but at the same time, I haven't found an amp that sounds *better* either. Probably shows that amps are already so good that the weak links are somewhere else.
cheers and enjoy your evening
You too!
You have to define "ordinary" here. And please post any pointers you might have to ABX results involving the ncore, I am sure we are all interested!
Anyway, based on my own results the ncore is no better than other *good* amps, but at the same time, I haven't found an amp that sounds *better* either. Probably shows that amps are already so good that the weak links are somewhere else.
You too!
Interesting perspective. Ncore is so transparent that other factors become the practical bottlenecks - Probably true for almost any nc400 based system and many hypex UCD-based too
I remember the report to be posted here within the last month or so, but I'm far from sure. My faulty memory say ordinary in the sense of a mid-range surround receiver of some sort (But I'm practically guessing, though I'm sure it wasn't any "high end" thingy). His case may very well show the same as yours -other factors are what limits the ncore. -If he ran the ncores off the preamp in his receiver it makes sense to me...
Thanks.
Last edited:
no; just helping you out with some language you seemed to be struggling with... and still seem to be, now you are maybe struggling with the use of 'outside of', by reading that too literally? 'outside of' in this context just means something that is not contained within the boundary ie. not the norm.
its a pretty simple phrase; if you are making claims for something that goes against what is generally accepted as the norm, you must make more effort than the norm/ordinary, to prove it without a doubt.
Sighted listening tests by themselves are not acceptable as proof of something that goes against accepted and tested knowledge, they are anecdotal only. Objective testing by itself is not so useful either, but its more reliable by itself than subjective/possibly biased listening is by itself; which is the most common method, even here...
both methods have their place and DBT is about as close as you can get to straddling both domains.
So we presume that the purely subjective is taken care of, for you to have a phenomenon you want to explain, to further that you need to undertake DBT and objective testing.
Last edited:
I don't think we disagree much then -aside linguistics maybe... Glad that we can help each other.
For me norms are just part of this. My concern is on the other hand directed on how and with what such ABX/DB tests are conducted in detail, because it is the details that produce certain patterns in peoples behaviour that we can learn something about more than how such details like level matching for instance enables us to exclude something entirely. In my interpretation level matching becomes not just part of the answer to the question too: how can we qualify sound pressure in relation to how it affects human perception under those specific conditions which among others could be bi-trate, sampling frequency ect.
Just a short note on where my perspective is coming from: Experimental psychology (which ABX/DBT like these must be considered a version of) has since the 50s and 60s discussed what we actually can learn from such experimental setups. Until recently such setups have generally been disregarded within psychology (especially as sources of objective truths about how the human mind in general works/reacts. The more recent ideas concerns the experimental setups themselves (all things included) as useful sources of knowledge about how we understand people to react under those exact manipulated circumstances. Hence turning away from unravelling the secrets of the mind to instead see these tests as interesting cases of what can be called "distributed cognition" (not my invention look up Edwin Hutchins(1995): Cognition in the wild)
It is this twist in focus (turning away from the general claim to instead see the setup as what we are interested in understanding more thoroughly) that I believe engineers and natural scientists who are concerned with psychological/cognitive aspects of something like audio reproduction could learn something from.
My hopes obviously were too high as hifi-enginers seemingly are uninterested in understanding (or at least reflectively problematizing what can be learned from tests like ABX/DBT) and seeing these tests to produce certain effects that tells us more about the setup than human perception in general.
This is of course also about "norms" and "interests" that vary between disciplines, but essentially I respect psychologists' reservations on what we can learn from tests that are conducted to reveal psychological/perceptive reactions like "hearing a difference or not".
I do not mean to disrespect anyone -and I don't think we gain anything if done, so I humble excuse that I have raised critic on subject of what we can learn from ABX/ABT.
cheers,
I guess that is because audio engineers are more interested in answering the question "does this aspect of the design have audible results" rather than pushing the envelope of research into human perception in general. I guess we need to leave something for the experimental psychologists to do
The only specific aspect of human perception that audio engineers tend to be occupied with is psychoacoustics in the context of lossy perceptual encoding (mp3 to you and me), where ABX is used extensively.
So, to reiterate, ABX in it's various forms is not perfect (what ever is?), but it is the best tool we have to determine, in a reasonably objective and verifiable way, if something makes an audible difference or not.
On that bombshell... Can we get back to discussing nCores now?
I guess that is because audio engineers are more interested in answering the question "does this aspect of the design have audible results" rather than pushing the envelope of research into human perception in general. I guess we need to leave something for the experimental psychologists to do
The only specific aspect of human perception that audio engineers tend to be occupied with is psychoacoustics in the context of lossy perceptual encoding (mp3 to you and me), where ABX is used extensively.
So, to reiterate, ABX in it's various forms is not perfect (what ever is?), but it is the best tool we have to determine, in a reasonably objective and verifiable way, if something makes an audible difference or not.
On that bombshell... Can we get back to discussing nCores now?
Yes please, -with and without ABX
Anyone found where to buy enclosure with black faceplate, silverfaceplates there are a lot. The only one i found with black is this:
"Modello: Galaxy Maggiorato GX283 230 x 230 mm
with 10mm front and 2mm alu. covers
Descrizione:
1x frontal in aluminum 10mm oxidized black
1x back in aluminum 3mm oxidized black;
2x flanks in aluminum of 10 mm oxidized black ,
2x covers in alu 2mm oxydized black
Dimensions:
Width: body 230mm, inner useful 210mm
Height: 80mm
Depth: 230mm"
But are there others, i searching for a clean black (thick) front and would like the size be around 200x300mm instead.
And the other, is it suitable to put one monoblock in top of the other? Do they produce much heat in bottom/top?
"Modello: Galaxy Maggiorato GX283 230 x 230 mm
with 10mm front and 2mm alu. covers
Descrizione:
1x frontal in aluminum 10mm oxidized black
1x back in aluminum 3mm oxidized black;
2x flanks in aluminum of 10 mm oxidized black ,
2x covers in alu 2mm oxydized black
Dimensions:
Width: body 230mm, inner useful 210mm
Height: 80mm
Depth: 230mm"
But are there others, i searching for a clean black (thick) front and would like the size be around 200x300mm instead.
And the other, is it suitable to put one monoblock in top of the other? Do they produce much heat in bottom/top?
I have the galaxy cases, they are good cases, but they are massive, i have the 230x230 for my other amps, and i have a set of 230x170 that i planned to put my ncores into, the 230x170 is a tighter fit, but will fit and waste less space. the galaxy maggy case is a very good quality case, and the aluminum is easy to machine.
TAKACHI ELECTRONICS ENCLOSURE CO., LTD. has some nice cases
i have a set of HIT model cases for my ncore
http://www.takachi-enclosure.com/data/c1213/c_en_p145-146.pdf
the largest of the hit series, but still tiny compared to anything out there, it will be a perfect fit, with no space for anything else.
Ok, i think i will go for the 230x230mm from Galaxy if i don´t find other cases and if i decide build one for myself with a single amp module for each channel. I hope it will fit with 2amp modules/enclosure for future upgrade to bridged ncore´s. Or shall i go for the 230x280?!
I want black faceplate since i always wanna do something special when i build something and i have access to cnc machine´s.
Someone belive there is no problem to put on mono on top of the other?
Considering the NC400 has a specified idle loss of 4.5 W and the SMPS 5W, it sounds like your Kill-A-Watt confirms it pretty nicely.
Especially if its not the smps600 since the use of the internal driver supply on the nc400 should add another 5W to its consumption/dissipation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.