Konnichiwa,
I think it is time to actually do a controlled, like for like test of this, meaning matched gains, identical components etc., as we have plenty "Apples & Pears" comparisons which are unlikely ever to have been level matched.
(And the difference in gain between Peters "inverted" and "non-inverted" circuit is just large enough to be inaudible as increase in level but to be noticable in exactly the way it is being described. See also the classic MF Audio X-10 Tube Buffer Effect - in a level matched comparison it materially disimproves the sound, but if just inserted between CD Player and Pre and A/B'ed WITHOUT correcting the extra gain it has been described and observed to sound IN COMPARISON exactly as the supposed differences between NI & I circuits with different gain.)
I suggest I'll build a "gainclone" using a circuit that offers a "semi-balanced" input with XLR's as jacks. This will be driven by a TVC based linestage and the Ack!dAck.
A 3-Position switch will be fitted to select inverting mode (ground the XLR pin connecting to the positive input), balanced input (switch open circuit) and non-inverting mode (ground the XLR pin connecting to the negative input), in all cases changing only the mode of operation (inverted, pseudo balanced, non-inverted), while leaving gain, components etc EXACTLY identical.
In order to eliminate any personal bias by myself I suggest any London (UK) or South UK based members who feel like having a listen drop by for an organised, blind listening session (weekend days only and I need some time to build the Amp and prepare of course).
Any takers?
Sayonara
PS, of course, this does not have any bearing on the question "Does Circuit A with the Parts Complement A and Part Value A sound better than Circuit B with Parts Complement B and Parts Value B?" Which in the end is a purely subjective question anyway.
I think it is time to actually do a controlled, like for like test of this, meaning matched gains, identical components etc., as we have plenty "Apples & Pears" comparisons which are unlikely ever to have been level matched.
(And the difference in gain between Peters "inverted" and "non-inverted" circuit is just large enough to be inaudible as increase in level but to be noticable in exactly the way it is being described. See also the classic MF Audio X-10 Tube Buffer Effect - in a level matched comparison it materially disimproves the sound, but if just inserted between CD Player and Pre and A/B'ed WITHOUT correcting the extra gain it has been described and observed to sound IN COMPARISON exactly as the supposed differences between NI & I circuits with different gain.)
I suggest I'll build a "gainclone" using a circuit that offers a "semi-balanced" input with XLR's as jacks. This will be driven by a TVC based linestage and the Ack!dAck.
A 3-Position switch will be fitted to select inverting mode (ground the XLR pin connecting to the positive input), balanced input (switch open circuit) and non-inverting mode (ground the XLR pin connecting to the negative input), in all cases changing only the mode of operation (inverted, pseudo balanced, non-inverted), while leaving gain, components etc EXACTLY identical.
In order to eliminate any personal bias by myself I suggest any London (UK) or South UK based members who feel like having a listen drop by for an organised, blind listening session (weekend days only and I need some time to build the Amp and prepare of course).
Any takers?
Sayonara
PS, of course, this does not have any bearing on the question "Does Circuit A with the Parts Complement A and Part Value A sound better than Circuit B with Parts Complement B and Parts Value B?" Which in the end is a purely subjective question anyway.
Wow ! Things are getting serious between the I and NI camp.
However since KYW otherwise known as TL is willing to go to such lengths to reach a conclusion I think some audiophiles would be interested to pariticipate in his invite.
I just wish I was closer although I can't rule out showing up via one of those "0 euro" Ryan air flights to London.
However since KYW otherwise known as TL is willing to go to such lengths to reach a conclusion I think some audiophiles would be interested to pariticipate in his invite.
I just wish I was closer although I can't rule out showing up via one of those "0 euro" Ryan air flights to London.
Konnichiwa,
I don't think there is anything to "get serious" about.
I merely object to the concept of comparing two quite different amplifiers and to draw conclusions about the fundamental topology from this.
On one side there are experimentor guys who try a huge lot but rarely if ever take care to level the playing field sufficiently to allow for direct comparison of topologies. On the other hand you find people who are interested primarily in the fundamentals behind the circuitry.
I seem to remember that a while ago someone build a DAC that was very complex, with asyncronous re-clocking and another, very different one that omited re-clocking and which sounded better. The result was a sudden "public opinion swell" against asyncronous reclocking just as previously it had been discussed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Longer ago there where long discussions on battery power and some people upon trying (for whatever reasons) found Batteries not to their liking and suddenly batteries where completely out (they appear in again, let's see for how long).
I go with Schiller/Beethoven:
" Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng geteilt:
alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein snafter Flügel weilt."
The fashion is non of my concern.
Sayonara
protos said:
I don't think there is anything to "get serious" about.
I merely object to the concept of comparing two quite different amplifiers and to draw conclusions about the fundamental topology from this.
On one side there are experimentor guys who try a huge lot but rarely if ever take care to level the playing field sufficiently to allow for direct comparison of topologies. On the other hand you find people who are interested primarily in the fundamentals behind the circuitry.
I seem to remember that a while ago someone build a DAC that was very complex, with asyncronous re-clocking and another, very different one that omited re-clocking and which sounded better. The result was a sudden "public opinion swell" against asyncronous reclocking just as previously it had been discussed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Longer ago there where long discussions on battery power and some people upon trying (for whatever reasons) found Batteries not to their liking and suddenly batteries where completely out (they appear in again, let's see for how long).
I go with Schiller/Beethoven:
" Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng geteilt:
alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein snafter Flügel weilt."
The fashion is non of my concern.
Sayonara
Good idea T - pity London is a bit too far for me too but I have an 'agent' in your vicinity! 
Seriously, I got a bit miffed when people kept asking for comparsions of my OPA627 buffered IGC and the VBICG. There are just too many differences to draw a fair and objective conclusion.
I have seen people swear that one CD player is better than another simply because the 'better' one had a bit higher output. I'm not suggesting that those saying that the non-inverting version sounds better are mistaken but I do know just how easy it is to be fooled in this game.
I can only say to those living close enough to T, should make the effort to participate in this worthwhile experiment.
Seriously, I got a bit miffed when people kept asking for comparsions of my OPA627 buffered IGC and the VBICG. There are just too many differences to draw a fair and objective conclusion.
I have seen people swear that one CD player is better than another simply because the 'better' one had a bit higher output. I'm not suggesting that those saying that the non-inverting version sounds better are mistaken but I do know just how easy it is to be fooled in this game.
I can only say to those living close enough to T, should make the effort to participate in this worthwhile experiment.
A/B Test
I did an A/B between the IGC and the NIGC but used different values of gain.However the SPL was matched using a signal generator.
Both were battery P/S and both used C resistors.
In the end after having 5 different ppl do a blind test i found that the IGC with an active pre had the same or so close to the same performance of the NIGC with a passive pre (50k shunted pot) that it was hard to tell the difference.
I like the active pre (tda1524a) because i can dial in LF and HF response which is an adjustment for room conditions.
Yes i am not a fan of EQ, but unless you design a set of speakers specifically for a room, EQ becomes necessary.
ron
I did an A/B between the IGC and the NIGC but used different values of gain.However the SPL was matched using a signal generator.
Both were battery P/S and both used C resistors.
In the end after having 5 different ppl do a blind test i found that the IGC with an active pre had the same or so close to the same performance of the NIGC with a passive pre (50k shunted pot) that it was hard to tell the difference.
I like the active pre (tda1524a) because i can dial in LF and HF response which is an adjustment for room conditions.
Yes i am not a fan of EQ, but unless you design a set of speakers specifically for a room, EQ becomes necessary.
ron
First of all, upon switching amplifiers I always matched the gain, although by ear only.
Second, I don't care at all which configuration is superior. It may very well be truth that inverting is better, but when implemented in the amp, doesn't allow to use components values that can be used with non inverting topology. And this may as well give the NI amp the advantage.
It's not even about direct comparisons. We sent an amp to the guy in another country. He comments it's ok, but not great. We ask him to send it back and we send him the modified amp. Now he comments it's better than Gain Card. So matching the levels is not the issue here.
It's the topology (to some extent or not at all), the parts values and parts choices.
It may appear than in your controlled test, the inverting circuit comes out better. But so what, if you cannot implement it the same way as non inverting one? Less feedback resistance, better input impedance matching and so on.
If you guys are so serious about it, I might even come to London myself
Second, I don't care at all which configuration is superior. It may very well be truth that inverting is better, but when implemented in the amp, doesn't allow to use components values that can be used with non inverting topology. And this may as well give the NI amp the advantage.
It's not even about direct comparisons. We sent an amp to the guy in another country. He comments it's ok, but not great. We ask him to send it back and we send him the modified amp. Now he comments it's better than Gain Card. So matching the levels is not the issue here.
It's the topology (to some extent or not at all), the parts values and parts choices.
It may appear than in your controlled test, the inverting circuit comes out better. But so what, if you cannot implement it the same way as non inverting one? Less feedback resistance, better input impedance matching and so on.
If you guys are so serious about it, I might even come to London myself
I would never state than one config was better than another, just that wih an active pre the amp has more flexibility as to adapting to room conditions.
As i sell to "the common man" and not audiophiles i find that ,in general, most cant hear the last 10%.
Hay its an easy sell, most ppl have never heard a high end (whatever definition you care to hang on that one is) system.With the increased dynamics of the horns and along with the resoluion and accuracy of ANY config GC i find that the general public is blown away.I love either the 2 normal responses i get, one is the open mouth with jaw hanging the other is wide eyed with an ear to ear grin.In both cases i fine the effort i have put into the systems worth while.
ron
BTW! i calculated my profits and i can make more working part time at a fast food resturant.Its more for the ppl that find good sound than me making money.
As i sell to "the common man" and not audiophiles i find that ,in general, most cant hear the last 10%.
Hay its an easy sell, most ppl have never heard a high end (whatever definition you care to hang on that one is) system.With the increased dynamics of the horns and along with the resoluion and accuracy of ANY config GC i find that the general public is blown away.I love either the 2 normal responses i get, one is the open mouth with jaw hanging the other is wide eyed with an ear to ear grin.In both cases i fine the effort i have put into the systems worth while.
ron
BTW! i calculated my profits and i can make more working part time at a fast food resturant.Its more for the ppl that find good sound than me making money.
Good idea KWG, as long as the gain ratio was the same.
As i am trying to get the most bang for the buck i dont use higher end componens ie.Black Gates.All i use is standard hammond cabs , +/- 5% C resistors, and nichicon caps.Any pots are 50K alps blue.
Yea i know better components will sound better , but as stated the general public cant normally tell the difference in the last 10%.
ron
As i am trying to get the most bang for the buck i dont use higher end componens ie.Black Gates.All i use is standard hammond cabs , +/- 5% C resistors, and nichicon caps.Any pots are 50K alps blue.
Yea i know better components will sound better , but as stated the general public cant normally tell the difference in the last 10%.
ron
Konnichiwa,
I would not trust my ears to even get it to within 1db. I always use a Voltmenter and test-tone.
My point exactly. I have no problem whatsoever with your observation that your implemented NI Amplifier sounds subjectively better than the I version.
I do have a problem when then it is concluded (not by you I might add) that NI is inherently superior after all (eg. the audio orthodoxy was right after all).
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF...the topology, the parts values and parts choices.
I have no quarel with that either. It is as I mentioned before often a question of design aims and design choices. And for example - non of the parts you favour would find their way into my own gear, simply because I find them by far too manipulative sonically (and will maintain the same for Op-Amp's NI), but that is simply a matter of preference and choice.
We of course do welcome participation from the Commonwealth, but maybe not from the rebellious colonies.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I would not trust my ears to even get it to within 1db. I always use a Voltmenter and test-tone.
Peter Daniel said:
My point exactly. I have no problem whatsoever with your observation that your implemented NI Amplifier sounds subjectively better than the I version.
I do have a problem when then it is concluded (not by you I might add) that NI is inherently superior after all (eg. the audio orthodoxy was right after all).
Peter Daniel said:
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF...the topology, the parts values and parts choices.
Peter Daniel said:
I have no quarel with that either. It is as I mentioned before often a question of design aims and design choices. And for example - non of the parts you favour would find their way into my own gear, simply because I find them by far too manipulative sonically (and will maintain the same for Op-Amp's NI), but that is simply a matter of preference and choice.
Peter Daniel said:If you guys are so serious about it, I might even come to London myself
We of course do welcome participation from the Commonwealth, but maybe not from the rebellious colonies.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I guess I need to clarify my previous statements. I NEVER claimed that inverted topology is inferior to non inverted. It may very well be superior. I simply don't know.
What I claim is that GC amp built using the combination of NI topology, parts values and their choices seems to be superior to its inverting counterpart.
Now, I never claimed that the parts I'm using are the best. It's just happens that this is what I was given to try. But I'm always ears to good suggestions and if you think that some other parts are better, I would gladly try them out.
After all, I'm not in all that for the money (although some financial compensation would be nice after all that time spent). I'm simply on a quest to build a really good sounding amp. I made some mistakes on a way, but I always try to learn and improve on them.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Hi,
- with only grounding one input, amp gain will change (1+Rf/Ri and Rf/Ri)
- what about absolute phase?
I think that PD's idea (separate amps) is much better.
Do you will measure with scope outputs of amps? I was noticed for some degree higher instability in NI topology (especially when input and output terminals are too close).
Regards
Rebellious colonies? LOL
When i set up the A/B test i used a signal generator set to 1Khz and an SPL meter at 1.5 meters.Yea i am from the colonies but i find the metric system better, easier anyway.
Its my feeling that if you design for the golden ears the cost goes up and eliminates many of us common folk from getting a better sound system.
ron
When i set up the A/B test i used a signal generator set to 1Khz and an SPL meter at 1.5 meters.Yea i am from the colonies but i find the metric system better, easier anyway.
Its my feeling that if you design for the golden ears the cost goes up and eliminates many of us common folk from getting a better sound system.
ron
Re: Re: Inverted vs. Non Inverted
Konnichiwa,
Please re-read my post and if neccesary actually draw out what I describe. The key-word in there "pseudo-balanced". No matter what position the switch is in the gain (both noise-gain and signal gain) is always the same and output polarity is always the same. It does rely on the Transformer (volume control) of course to make the work allright.
I do think it is not acceptable, unless implemented with identical components and component values. Otherwise if we take Peters approach I could make my inverting Amp with a BUF634 Buffer and an even lower impedance feedback loop and use any number of other tricks to go beyond the performance (subjective & objective) of any straight Chipamp, which would proove nothing about topology.
Except, I cannot be bothered to invest that much time into solid state stuff so hence the basic "all else being equal BUT the mode of operation" setup proposed. And no, i am not going to use premium parts either nor am I going to batteries in the PSU.
Of course.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
moamps said:
Please re-read my post and if neccesary actually draw out what I describe. The key-word in there "pseudo-balanced". No matter what position the switch is in the gain (both noise-gain and signal gain) is always the same and output polarity is always the same. It does rely on the Transformer (volume control) of course to make the work allright.
moamps said:
I do think it is not acceptable, unless implemented with identical components and component values. Otherwise if we take Peters approach I could make my inverting Amp with a BUF634 Buffer and an even lower impedance feedback loop and use any number of other tricks to go beyond the performance (subjective & objective) of any straight Chipamp, which would proove nothing about topology.
Except, I cannot be bothered to invest that much time into solid state stuff so hence the basic "all else being equal BUT the mode of operation" setup proposed. And no, i am not going to use premium parts either nor am I going to batteries in the PSU.
moamps said:
Of course.
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.