Hello,
i think that in the end this hobby can lead me to madness ...
I have always tried hard to understand at least some bits, but sometimes i sincerely think that the task is beyond my possibilities ...
One last case
The product in question an op-amp based line preamp presented here in this forum.
I am sure it is a really great product, with SOTA specifications.
And still the designer says in the project pages ...
I do no want to start a discussion on what open and transparent is.
For me it is easier to understand an open window, or a transparent glass ...
Can this transparency in audio circuit be correlated to some parameters ?
If so i would very much prefer words like ... low noise, low distortion, high slew rate ... to avoid any form of confusion.
Then ... speaking of semiconductors in the audio path ... well and opamp has several of them ... even 30 !
Just for me to understand .. does this mean that an op-amp must be seen as a single semiconductor ?
Another thing ... if measurements are so important (the designer mentions impressive figures to support the quality of the product i guess) i do not think tubes are champs on this matter, at least distortion and noise wise.
I am trying to understand as i said at the beginning ... but it is not easy.
Kind regards, gino
i think that in the end this hobby can lead me to madness ...
I have always tried hard to understand at least some bits, but sometimes i sincerely think that the task is beyond my possibilities ...
One last case
The product in question an op-amp based line preamp presented here in this forum.
I am sure it is a really great product, with SOTA specifications.
And still the designer says in the project pages ...
I do no want to start a discussion on what open and transparent is.
For me it is easier to understand an open window, or a transparent glass ...
Can this transparency in audio circuit be correlated to some parameters ?
If so i would very much prefer words like ... low noise, low distortion, high slew rate ... to avoid any form of confusion.
Then ... speaking of semiconductors in the audio path ... well and opamp has several of them ... even 30 !
Just for me to understand .. does this mean that an op-amp must be seen as a single semiconductor ?
Another thing ... if measurements are so important (the designer mentions impressive figures to support the quality of the product i guess) i do not think tubes are champs on this matter, at least distortion and noise wise.
I am trying to understand as i said at the beginning ... but it is not easy.
Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
Lets just say that opamps do sound subtly different (the best of the best) and with a correspondingly bigger difference between the best and "worse".
The terms you use have all tried to be identified and matched to specific parameters but with little success.
As to considering the opamp as one semiconductor, well I suppose you do really. Change it and you change the whole circuit with a corresponding change in subjective audio performance and measured performance too. If you really did construct your opamp from discrete parts (it can be done) and then changed the individual semiconductors in that discrete opamp you would not notice much change in performance (within reason and not being silly with choice of devices)
If you are interested in opamps then you might like to try this. We did some pretty involved tests some months ago but the files are long gone now, this one is purely for fun
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/256170-low-noise-opamps-2014-a-7.html#post3940630
The terms you use have all tried to be identified and matched to specific parameters but with little success.
As to considering the opamp as one semiconductor, well I suppose you do really. Change it and you change the whole circuit with a corresponding change in subjective audio performance and measured performance too. If you really did construct your opamp from discrete parts (it can be done) and then changed the individual semiconductors in that discrete opamp you would not notice much change in performance (within reason and not being silly with choice of devices)
If you are interested in opamps then you might like to try this. We did some pretty involved tests some months ago but the files are long gone now, this one is purely for fun
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/256170-low-noise-opamps-2014-a-7.html#post3940630
Hello and thank you very much for the valuable replies.
Needless to say that i have not any kind of prejudice towards op-amps.
They are used in very high quality equipment. So they must be good.
Nevertheless i also know that to use them right is not an easy job.
I will stop my ramblings and go back to study the link proposed
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
Needless to say that i have not any kind of prejudice towards op-amps.
They are used in very high quality equipment. So they must be good.
Nevertheless i also know that to use them right is not an easy job.
I will stop my ramblings and go back to study the link proposed
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
The real problem is identifying components that have these elusive properties. If we had units that had more of one of these properties than another component then we could study the small difference. We would have to exclude components that have euphoric coloration's like SET amps and phono cartridge pre-amp combinations also exclude loudspeakers. All these items have so many differences that we would never be able to identify the cause of the elusive property.
Hi and thank you for your reply
What i cannot easily accept is the "It measures very bad and sounds very good", with this being a case taken from Stereophile magazine
This is very hard for me to accept.
Just thing also how this graph would be with a real loudspeaker load ... a mess.
Maybe i have found a limit in the way audio equipment are tested.
Usually tests are carried out only on a single equipment, with a standard signal and a standard load in standard condition with the results seen on a scope.
Instead the testing of all the chain is usually done by listening.
I would like to see some measurements carried out on the whole system, placing a mic in the listening position (with the room effect also captured).
I wonder how many Golden Ears have limited earing abilities. Do they have their ears checked and certified ?
I think that a component can be good in standard testing conditions, but have problems when put in a complete chain.
The more i think about it and the more i am convinced that the instrumental testing way is the way to go.
The rest is just fraud ...
Thanks and regards, gino
P.S. i do believe much more in a good mic than in a old human golden ear
What i cannot easily accept is the "It measures very bad and sounds very good",
with this being a case taken from Stereophile magazine
This is very hard for me to accept.
Just thing also how this graph would be with a real loudspeaker load ... a mess.
Maybe i have found a limit in the way audio equipment are tested.
Usually tests are carried out only on a single equipment, with a standard signal and a standard load in standard condition with the results seen on a scope.
Instead the testing of all the chain is usually done by listening.
I would like to see some measurements carried out on the whole system, placing a mic in the listening position (with the room effect also captured).
I wonder how many Golden Ears have limited earing abilities. Do they have their ears checked and certified ?
I think that a component can be good in standard testing conditions, but have problems when put in a complete chain.
The more i think about it and the more i am convinced that the instrumental testing way is the way to go.
The rest is just fraud ...
Thanks and regards, gino
P.S. i do believe much more in a good mic than in a old human golden ear
Last edited:
The way I see it,
Open is space between the instruments etc in a sound stage between speakers.
Transparent is the clarity with which the instruments or voice can be heard in the soundstage.
Veiled is not being able to hear the sound of an instrument or voice clearly.
Smear is not being able to hear the position of instruments or clear voice.
Have a look at the ledr tests
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
The ideal is a transparent sound with good soundstage (positioning of instruments) with enough smear so rubbish recordings don't sound to bad..
Regards
M. Gregg
Open is space between the instruments etc in a sound stage between speakers.
Transparent is the clarity with which the instruments or voice can be heard in the soundstage.
Veiled is not being able to hear the sound of an instrument or voice clearly.
Smear is not being able to hear the position of instruments or clear voice.
Have a look at the ledr tests
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
The ideal is a transparent sound with good soundstage (positioning of instruments) with enough smear so rubbish recordings don't sound to bad..
Regards
M. Gregg
The way I see it,
Open is space between the instruments etc in a sound stage between speakers.
Transparent is the clarity with which the instruments or voice can be heard in the soundstage.
Veiled is not being able to hear the sound of an instrument or voice clearly.
Smear is not being able to hear the position of instruments or clear voice.
Have a look at the ledr tests
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
The ideal is a transparent sound with good soundstage (positioning of instruments) with enough smear so rubbish recordings don't sound to bad..
Regards
M. Gregg
Al those terms can be combined into two phrases ........
"Low distortion" and "flat freq response"
.
Unless you know what gives you 'transparency" etc, how can you obtain it ?
Hi and i agree.
When i read words like ... hash, grain, myst, haze etc. i get nervous.
Or parts selection by ear ... this is very annoying.
IMH experience every time i heard some problems with the sound this was completely explainable with some analysis of the components in the chain.
And often it was an issue of matching, expecially amp with speakers.
Kind regards, gino
The way I see it,
Open is space between the instruments etc in a sound stage between speakers.
Transparent is the clarity with which the instruments or voice can be heard in the soundstage.
Veiled is not being able to hear the sound of an instrument or voice clearly.
Smear is not being able to hear the position of instruments or clear voice.
Have a look at the ledr tests
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
The ideal is a transparent sound with good soundstage (positioning of instruments) with enough smear so rubbish recordings don't sound to bad..
Regards
M. Gregg
Hi and thanks for the advice.
I am very basic ... there are things i cannot accept easily.
Like distortion presence ... a unit cannot be called "transparent" if it show high levels of distortion.
I think he was a speakers designer who said that if a speaker measures good than you do not have to test it by listening, because the sound must be good as well.
I agree. Right measurements tell it all.
Kind regards, gino
You wish. To have those things one has to have good DDR.I have yet to see anything that measures that really measures that.
dave
it can't. But what we measure as distortion is but a small subset of all distortion. And we have little understanding of the relation between these distortions & what the ear/brain perceives. Complicated by a huge range ofears/brains.
We do know that THD has little-to-no correlation. Looking at the actual harmonics can give some clues, but that is open to interpretation. And of allthe possible ways of sussing out harmonic distortion what we measure is a very small subset of how the device is actually used.
dave
How do we know it is a "small subset"? By definition, all these other alleged distortions are unknown so how do we know how many of them there are?planet10 said:
No we don't. We know that THD has some correlation with perceived reproduction quality. We also know that preferred sound quality has (for some people) weak correlation wth reproduction quality.
Thanks a lot for your valuable advice.
Still i would like to make a brave comparison.
Between watching and hearing experience.
When an object is out of focus its shape is distorted and the brain makes an effort to understand what kind of object really is.
For me the same is when hearing sounds.
When the sounds are distorted the brain struggles to identify/locate the instruments that have generated them.
One very simple test is with speech recognition, a test that i value very highly also for evaluating stereo systems quality.
If the voice is distorted is very difficult to understand the words ... this is not good. The viceversa also applies.
Usually systems that have excellent speech rendition are also very low in distortion ... and i would bet that they would be equally good with music tracks.
For instance listening to a very good recording of a person speaking if i close my eyes i should be fooled to hear the real person speaking in front of me ... more or less.
Thanks and regards, gino
Last edited:
Just deduction. What we are measuring now is not telling us the story, systems are not perfect (and all the same) so there is more we can'r yet quantify.
Lots of counter examples to that. Only at the grossest levels does THD correlate with perceived quality.
dave
At least one version, here: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary | Stereophile.com
Nicely put together, I find it self-consistent ...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.