Yes. The TTs are somewhat understandable, but what the hell is the CD player/DAC doing wrong??!!
IME, digital PRaT problems are system issues, interference "muck" is doing the damage somewhere - and the fun bit is trying to track it down,
. Easiest solution I use, is to make the system as "comfortable" as possible, by eliminating sources of external interference to a fair degree, and extensive conditioning - usually gets the sound to a pretty reasonable level, for everyday listening ...
Yes. The TTs are somewhat understandable, but what the hell is the CD player/DAC doing wrong??!!
S-D type DACs suffer from noise modulation - the subjective effects of which turn out like timing/rhythm variations. I recall that when the first 'Bitstream' players came out around the early 90's, audiophiles complained about 'slow bass'. Turns out there's good technical reasons for that which Peter Craven (I think it was him) explained to me.
fdegrove
Thank you for buttressing my post #426. The fact that you could distill my point of view so quickly is a testament not only to your good sense but also to the recalcitrance exhibited herein. I know all the distortions spoken about can occur in greater amounts elsewhere in the audio reproduction chain but the amp is the best place to correlate the measure to the effect. This is why we need to define the sonic effect of measurement changes with a set of comprehensive audio outcomes to build this communicative framework. Without one, we are left with comments like:
i increased the bandwidth to 150kHz and added 6dB global negative feedback to keep it flat and stable. It really opened up and sounds a bit crunchier now. Is that really more descriptive than describing the changes in sound with my postulates on a comparative scale?
jcx
Exactly! We need a more communicative way to describe what does what and I believe the framework offered herein can get this done.
Thank you for buttressing my post #426. The fact that you could distill my point of view so quickly is a testament not only to your good sense but also to the recalcitrance exhibited herein. I know all the distortions spoken about can occur in greater amounts elsewhere in the audio reproduction chain but the amp is the best place to correlate the measure to the effect. This is why we need to define the sonic effect of measurement changes with a set of comprehensive audio outcomes to build this communicative framework. Without one, we are left with comments like:
i increased the bandwidth to 150kHz and added 6dB global negative feedback to keep it flat and stable. It really opened up and sounds a bit crunchier now. Is that really more descriptive than describing the changes in sound with my postulates on a comparative scale?
jcx
Exactly! We need a more communicative way to describe what does what and I believe the framework offered herein can get this done.
The question was rhetorical,
, ... but those type of DACs do show different characteristics. I've got around the issue largely by the heavy conditioning strategy, a bummer if you want instant, switch on good performance, but I can wait ... 
Hi,
I confess I jumped from a few pages earlier on that corrective post to the end of the thread wondering how it would have evolved.
Your post #426 and Jan Didden's comments following that set it straight.
I can also understand why you want the amp as the centre piece of the discussion with the proviso that anything else in the chain is "blameless".
From that POV we can try to figure out what's going on and try to figure out why amplifiers that seem to measure just fine can sound so different.
IOW we need to find out what and why.
Whilst we've all been told over and over again that we can measure just about anything, some aspects clearly escape the measurements. Or are perhaps misinterpreted....?
A few examples: microphony, power line disturbances, RFI/EMI breakthrough. To name just a few.
All of which are external factors.
Internally things can become much more complicated to isolate and pinpoint.
Passive components. Are they really that passive? What's the effect of heat/cooling cycling and so on.
Trouble is, there are so many factors that can affect sound (at least that's my opinion) that it becomes analogous to trying to find your way out of a gigantic maze.
Just anecdotally (and to annoy the perfect amp brigade), I and with me several others I know well, can easily recognize a reoccurring sonic signature of some (high-end) brands. A signature that's present throughout their range of products.
This can range from a certain metallic ring to ice cold to slightly warm to boxy etc.
Do these all share the same THD spectrum? I wonder.
I'd be curious to see the harmonic spectra of a number of these brands and compare them.
Was this the voicing job of each of these brands or was this just because these amps all had the same brand(s) of passive components in common? I suspect the latter.
Point is, to my mind at least, a properly voiced amplifier should be voiceless but not speechless...
Once properly voiced it should then follow that it will also be timbrally correct at all times. (Until driven into distortion or clipping of course)
Anyhow, we ain't out of the woods yet as to my modest mind at least, lots of these so called high-end/high priced amplifiers are still no more than "effect boxes" to some extent.
Ciao,
I confess I jumped from a few pages earlier on that corrective post to the end of the thread wondering how it would have evolved.
Your post #426 and Jan Didden's comments following that set it straight.
I can also understand why you want the amp as the centre piece of the discussion with the proviso that anything else in the chain is "blameless".
From that POV we can try to figure out what's going on and try to figure out why amplifiers that seem to measure just fine can sound so different.
IOW we need to find out what and why.
Whilst we've all been told over and over again that we can measure just about anything, some aspects clearly escape the measurements. Or are perhaps misinterpreted....?
A few examples: microphony, power line disturbances, RFI/EMI breakthrough. To name just a few.
All of which are external factors.
Internally things can become much more complicated to isolate and pinpoint.
Passive components. Are they really that passive? What's the effect of heat/cooling cycling and so on.
Trouble is, there are so many factors that can affect sound (at least that's my opinion) that it becomes analogous to trying to find your way out of a gigantic maze.
Just anecdotally (and to annoy the perfect amp brigade
), I and with me several others I know well, can easily recognize a reoccurring sonic signature of some (high-end) brands. A signature that's present throughout their range of products.This can range from a certain metallic ring to ice cold to slightly warm to boxy etc.
Do these all share the same THD spectrum? I wonder.
I'd be curious to see the harmonic spectra of a number of these brands and compare them.
Was this the voicing job of each of these brands or was this just because these amps all had the same brand(s) of passive components in common? I suspect the latter.
Point is, to my mind at least, a properly voiced amplifier should be voiceless but not speechless...
Once properly voiced it should then follow that it will also be timbrally correct at all times. (Until driven into distortion or clipping of course)
Anyhow, we ain't out of the woods yet as to my modest mind at least, lots of these so called high-end/high priced amplifiers are still no more than "effect boxes" to some extent.
Ciao,
I know you'll laugh - I have one of those.
Try an OTL...
>200W running.
Regards
M. Gregg
Hi,
I confess I jumped from a few pages earlier on that corrective post to the end of the thread wondering how it would have evolved.
Your post #426 and Jan Didden's comments following that set it straight.
I can also understand why you want the amp as the centre piece of the discussion with the proviso that anything else in the chain is "blameless".
From that POV we can try to figure out what's going on and try to figure out why amplifiers that seem to measure just fine can sound so different.
IOW we need to find out what and why.
Whilst we've all been told over and over again that we can measure just about anything, some aspects clearly escape the measurements. Or are perhaps misinterpreted....?
A few examples: microphony, power line disturbances, RFI/EMI breakthrough. To name just a few.
All of which are external factors.
Internally things can become much more complicated to isolate and pinpoint.
Passive components. Are they really that passive? What's the effect of heat/cooling cycling and so on.
All these are measurable, these and the component issues I would see as being part of the design cycle for ANY product. Heating is easily solved get a thermal camera and monitor the equipment or add thermocouples and monitor the equipment through thermal cycles etc, not possible for DIY but for commercial designs I would have thought this was standard practice, it is in the areas of electronics I tend to work in (though funnily enough we never get Audiophile customers, a few pro audio companies but no Audiophile ones!!!
Hi,
If I had to pick one Japanese brand that really made good amps then it would be Luxman. Both sand and hollow state.
Ciao,
When I lived in Japan in the middle of the eighties, Luxman produced some impressive kits for the domestic DIY market under the name of Luxkit. I built two power amps, which could be switched from class A to class AB.
I was completely unable to distinguish between the two settings, except by feeling how much heat was being produced. This is when the realization started to sink in, that once an amplifier fullfilled a set of minimum requirements, they became undistinguishable from each other. Every amp I bought since has confirmed that opinion.
+1..
How can you have a soundstage without a speaker?
How can you measure it?
How can you have a soundstage or image without a source?
The end result is the synergy of the whole system...
Then there is the room...
Then there is the listener..
What measurement can show the perceived height, width or depth of an image measured in the amp alone?
Even if the LEDR tests are used the above is true..
The impact of voicing an amplifier has to have a common "set point" to only produce the input in an amplified way..nothing added or taken away.
However that is always a trade off to get the best you can under given conditions..if a speaker is bright and you voice the amp to be rolled off then you get a more neutral sound..But if you then connect a speaker like a full range this will stand out..
Then the other thought is missing detail or information...
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Psychologically or in reality?
The first option might be fun to banter about, but the latter is untenable, as the effect disappears once tested.
Have you ever heard a lawyer say "Assumed facts not in evidence."?
This is pretty much my whole point.
Is there anything else in the world for which a similar discussion can be had, where properties that are proven to be false and are in reality, completely contrary to proper design philosophy should be discussed for other reasons than how to eliminate them?
Certainly, one can hear flaws in an amp listening to the original poster's attributes. eg. a soundstage that collapses when the amp is pushed.
This reveals the amp is being driven BEYOND it's design parameters; this is not voicing that is at issue. More likely a too heavy hand on the volume control. Over-driving an amp suggests that it is the incorrect tool for the installation and a larger amp is necessary.
This reveals the amp is being driven BEYOND it's design parameters; this is not voicing that is at issue. More likely a too heavy hand on the volume control. Over-driving an amp suggests that it is the incorrect tool for the installation and a larger amp is necessary.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.