| thomgun_lc |
;) Hi, every one. I'm sorry if my thread is not correct for this chipamp's forum.
;) But, i think this is important if we have one or the same loudspeaker to analyze our gainclone's sound. If we don't have the same loudspeaker, we can't say that this GC's sound is detailed,tight bass etc. But if we have the same reference loudspeaker, we can analyze the GC's sound with more objective.;)
Does anyone agree with me?;)
So, why not we build this loudspeaker?
There is many option to build this loudspeaker fullrange and 2way,which is better?(actually i prefer 2way)
Actually, my topic is to get the same reference point to listen our GC's sound.:smash:
regards
---------
TomZ:smash: |
|
|
| Evilsizer |
| well then we would also need the same room as well so we are hearing the same things. everyones house is differnt so reflections from the speaker will affect sound as well. |
|
|
| ron.eddy |
| quote: | | important if we have one or the same loudspeaker to analyze our gainclone's sound |
While I do agree this would be a good step toward more objective results, I also think everyone's hearing is different and it would still not provide enough of a reference. But I do think that if enough people build a certain gainclone and everyone posts their thoughts with honesty, eventually as more people build the same ones a consensus will be reached.
One way to expand on your idea would be for everyone to have a reference amplifier along with a reference loudspeaker set. Then comparisons could be made objectively to how the sound differs from the reference amp and speakers.
In the end though it may not help as much as the added cost of everyone having these reference devices cost. But who am I to say? :) |
|
|
| Jay |
It is impossible to ask everyone who build Gainclone to build the same loudspeaker in order to have an objective review of the Gainclone quality. Some own $$$$ loudspeakers, some own budget ones.
But every builder has the right to express their opinion on their amplifier sound, even tho it is the only amplifier they've ever built. The good practice then, when we start to express our opinion on audio quality to others, is to specifify the schematic we use, the components we use, the whole stuffs in the audio chain, how we do the comparison with other refferences, etc. etc. |
|
|
| thomgun_lc |
Hi guys!!Thx for ur all opinion.Before i post this thread,i know this topic will get many critic;)
I just only think if we get the same load (louspeaker) we can get the same result. It's impossible to build the same loudspeaker but i think we can build one with a simple design, like open baffle using fullrange driver;)
I know it's difficult to get an objective analyze about this GC. But when we test this GC with a terrible loudspeaker, the sound of the GC become worse and they will said this GC was bad.
So, we need an objective analyze not subjective analyze.
How to achieve subjective analyze?:smash:
regards
----------
TomZ |
|
|
| jaudio |
| I think it is a good idea. Standard have to start somewhere, a reference speaker would be that start. It doesnt have to cost big bucks. We can pick drivers from a closeout or buyout from partsexpress or mcm. I not saying this will be you main speakers. |
|
|
| janneman |
Why not buy reference headphones? They are less expensive, and they cut out the room influence. Somebody or a group with a good 'phone could even ship it around for listening sessions, together with a couple of 'reference' CDs. The disadvantage is that only one can listen at a time, but that should not be a problem; it might even increase the objectivity.
Develop a scoring sheet that everybody accepts, and be sure that all scoring is kept from other listeners and anonymous.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| jaudio |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Why not buy reference headphones? They are less expensive, and they cut out the room influence. |
Sounds good to me. |
|
|
| indoubt |
And do all GC's have a headphone out?
I think not. Although this would be the best way. I don't think the reference speaker idea will work. For reference it needs to be high quality with assiociated cost. |
|
|
| jaudio |
| quote: | Originally posted by indoubt
And do all GC's have a headphone out? |
How hard would be to add a circuit for headphones?
| quote: | Originally posted by indoubt
I think not. Although this would be the best way. I don't think the reference speaker idea will work. For reference it needs to be high quality with assiociated cost. |
Im not looking for a super high quality audiophile reference(a loaded word in this case). I want a standard loudspeaker,so if someone says 'the amp sounds this way or that way' I will have a clue. |
|
|
| Vikash |
| Just mssing a reference human being to do all the listening :clown: |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by jaudio
How hard would be to add a circuit for headphones?
[snip] |
.... 4 resistors..?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| xplod1236 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Evilsizer
well then we would also need the same room as well so we are hearing the same things. everyones house is differnt so reflections from the speaker will affect sound as well. |
Then we would all do the listening tests outside. |
|
|
| jaudio |
| Im not a true headphone fan because I have to go thru so many pairs to find one I like. If it help me hear what others hear it is worth it |
|
|
| jimbo1968 |
ron.eddy is right, from now on everyone who builds a gainclone must also build a standard BrianGT 3875 into an identical case.
When ordering please use code: jimbo1968 so brian knows where to send the referral fee. |
|
|
| owen |
How about a 3" tangband in an onken style box designed for wall mounting..?
Cheap, standard, and easily constructable. Who knows, you may like it too much!
Owen |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| I can't see this working out somehow. Even the guys that wanted to build a reference speaker, and set up a thread in the Full Range forum to do so, couldn't agree in the end! ;) |
|
|
| jimbo1968 |
I do think the reference amp make more sense.
The group ends up with information about how changes to the amp alter the sound with different types of speaker. Interested parties can look for comparison tests for speakers like their own. Who will really care how an amp sounds with a reference speaker?
Building a second amp is easy compared to building a speaker ( and this is an amp building forum).
For my part, I will shortly have standard lm3875, lm3886, amd lm4780 amps built, and will do a comparison with my sealed FR125S, and wharefdale diamond IVs. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by jimbo1968
[snip]The group ends up with information about how changes to the amp alter the sound with different types of speaker. Interested parties can look for comparison tests for speakers like their own. Who will really care how an amp sounds with a reference speaker?[snip] |
Probably not a lot of people. Which means that, with all those different speakers around, anybody's report on how the GC sounds on HIS system is worth diddly to anybody else ;) . But it DOES make for some good bar talk, of course.:o
Jan Didden |
|
|
| johngalt47 |
Vikash, that's really funny!! Who is going to volunteer to be the reference person?
Seriously, why don't we all take a hearing test and post it? I have to take a hearing test once a year for my job anyway.:clown: |
|
|
| jimbo1968 |
| I've been meaning to get my hearing tested because it might explain a couple of things: 1) my inability to hear speech in noisy bars 2) my ability to hear CRTs and cat scarers. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Which means that, with all those different speakers around, anybody's report on how the GC sounds on HIS system is worth diddly to anybody else ;) |
You are absolutely right.
Then there are people who listen to their amps with LOTS of different speakers and on lots of different systems.
For anything you build you need good references, be it speakers, amps, dacs, whatever.
In the case of amps, a good amp must be as 'universal' as possible, it must work well with most normal speakers. And it must be tested with lots of speakers.
Otherwise it's like you say, one diy amp for one diy system. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by johngalt47
Seriously, why don't we all take a hearing test and post it? |
If listening to music and evaluating a system was as simple as that, I would pick a 5 year old kid, not an adult.
Btw the proposal of this thread is nonsense, because nobody will agree on a 'reference speaker', if it is to be taken literally. |
|
|
| DJNUBZ |
I think that what you are talking about should not be called "refrence". Unfortunately that name means something different then what it should in audiophile terms.
I think that a common, cheap, easy to build speaker would be great for testing subjective traits of amps. We aren't talking hard science here but it would be a level playing ground to compare opinions. The design would have to be nearfield so that room interactions could be minimized. I think a simple sealed or ported monitor sized speaker utilizing a single driver would be best. Builders could use this setup to talk about common opinions and then they could use the amps in their regular system to discuss the "at home" aspects of the amps.
I think that this would also be great for comparing any amp on this site along with other types of gear such as preamps, DAC's, and etc. |
|
|
| johngalt47 |
| How about something really simple (at the risk of starting a flame war) by using a single really high quality driver like a Jordan? |
|
|
| edjosh23 |
I agree with Pink Mouse, but I'd be happy to build a cheap "reference" speaker. Unfortunately, cheap is the big thing for me, and unfortunately I think many of us can rule the Jordans out, sorry, but I definately don't have the money for that and I'm not sure many people are willing to spend that kind of money on speakers to be used for listening impressions.
I do like the idea of using a buyout or something, or using a tangband driver.
Josh |
|
|
| Nordic |
Lol, get some cats, my one cat goes absolutely crazy when I plug my LM3875 amp in, I think it has more range on the bass and treble than the REV C. The cat, never does anything when I listen to the REV C.
I can only imagine it hears something I don't. (And yes the LM3875 sounds nicer to me) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJNUBZ
I think that what you are talking about should not be called "refrence". Unfortunately that name means something different then what it should in audiophile terms.
I think that a common, cheap, easy to build speaker would be great for testing subjective traits of amps. We aren't talking hard science here but it would be a level playing ground to compare opinions. The design would have to be nearfield so that room interactions could be minimized. I think a simple sealed or ported monitor sized speaker utilizing a single driver would be best. Builders could use this setup to talk about common opinions and then they could use the amps in their regular system to discuss the "at home" aspects of the amps.
I think that this would also be great for comparing any amp on this site along with other types of gear such as preamps, DAC's, and etc. |
I read you, but I don't think it will fly either. Common sense dictates that if you want to use a common speaker to compare differences in amps, the speaker should be of such quality that it can render even the most minute vanishingly small differences. That means the very best, and very expensive, speaker. Not many people will be willing to do that!
That's why I suggested headphones. Arguably, a good phone has the resolving power of the very best speakers (if only because of the immunity of external noise and room resonances), without the price.
You don't even all have to buy a set of phones, you can just ship it around, along with a small box with 4 resistors to adapt it to the amp speaker output.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Nuuk |
This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player! :att'n: |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nuuk
[snip]Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
[snip] |
Right Nuuk, I agree it seems an unreachable goal. But we might start with the component that arguably has the greatest variation and differences in sound, the speaker (with the room). I think that is what the original poster had in mind. It is not that if you think you cannot get 100% correct that you should not start at all!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| owen |
Nick,
that's why I suggested the Tang Band... Cheap, accessible, and astounding results for a low cost driver.
Lets apply the same logic to this as from the LS3/5A - the main basis behind the design was to produce a small compact monitor, with known 'weaknesses' .
It does not have to be perfect, or extend from 0 to infinity.
The enclosure would be small, easy to construct, rigid and low cost too. - ideal for evaluation purposes.
It could even have a polygonal cabinet front to back to minimise resonances etc.
This could be done, with some sembelance of consistancy...
JMHO
Owen |
|
|
| Nuuk |
| quote: | | It is not that if you think you cannot get 100% correct that you should not start at all! |
I agree Jan but in this case, I don't think that anything less than say 90% would be objective, and I'm not sure that we can reach that, given that we all have different hearing characteristics!
Owen, I also take your point about the LS3/5A but keep in mind that they were designed by the BBC for use in studios and outside broadcast vans, ie in very similar conditions. And they were designed to 'do a job', rather than operate as 'recreational' hi-fi!
As somebody has already pointed out, the project to build a reference full-range speaker on another forum fizzled out after a lot of posts.
And even if we all have this 'reference' speaker, so what unless that is the one we use in our systems! In other words, we have to decide if we are building for our pleasure, or as an academic exercise. I know which camp I fall into! :att'n: |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nuuk
This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player! :att'n: |
Oh what an excellent post!
About Jan's idea of using headphones, it is an interesting idea, but unfortunately it won't serve to know how the amp will behave with a normal pair of speakers.
For instance, the low capacitange 1,000~1,500uF chipamp (this we can call it a 'GC') in my experience, and as a result of lots of tests, doesn't drive most normal speakers. It will drive headphones without trouble, though.
So, there are things you won't be able to detect with headphones. Besides driving ability, differencies in soundstage, voice and instrument placement will not be detectable.
Headphones are very 'in your head', center, left, right.
Btw to isolate from exterior noise, they should be closed back. |
|
|
| owen |
Try this...
One of Vikash's creations..
http://www.vikash.info/audio/W3-871S/
Nick,
I saw alot of that thread, and I am not suprised by the lack of agreement.
What I envisage is a low cost tool of known 'quantity' - the tangband set up does this nicely, and is cheap enough for most to be able to use it as a known quantity (and small enough to hide in a cupboard). Yes it will have limitations, it is a nearfield monitor, it does have mid 80's efficiency. But those are also it's strengths. Nearfield takes the room neatly out of the equation and the mid 80's efficiency means that the amps have to be worked harder (showing the differences neatly between high cap and low cap supplies for example)...
The idea is to produce a tool that is an enjoyable evaluation aid, of known quantity, not to produce a 'rocket science' ultimate maxi-monitor, or to incurr huge costs - the same compromises that drove the LS3/5 project from the start...
Just my view, and it would be easy enough for me to squeeze that kind of budget past the wife...
Owen |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by owen
This could be done, with some sembelance of consistancy... |
Owen, ther's no guarantee of consistancy on a diy project like this.
You can publish all the details for the construction of the speaker, but then someone will choose different materials (MDF, particle, etc...) for the enclosure and for the stuffing (and the amount of stuffing), crossover components, if any, and the final results will vary from speaker to speaker. |
|
|
| janneman |
Maybe at this point I'd like to clarify, that if your purpose is to built a 'great' amp (gainclone or otherwise) IN YOUR SYSTEM, the issue of a reference speaker is USELESS. Also, in this case, reports or opinions of other's that such-and-part or such-and-such configuration sounds best IN THEIR SYSTEM is USELESS for your system.
However, if your purpose is to identify what really influences sound, and to what extend, and to further the state of the art, references (speakers, sources) are a must.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| jaudio |
One thing is for sure I will not try or attempt to try every type or implementation of the gainclone or it's variations. I simple don’t have the time.
I believe we all know, we will never get the "best" sound. We are shooting at a moving target, one that will change direction at a dime. |
|
|
| owen |
Stuffing - None.
cabinet - MDF - available everywhere, cheap.
No crossover.
In my experience people try the different materials because of an urge to 'better' the speaker (mdf poor, particle board, better, ply better yet and so on), likewise with the stuffing - and nailing those details, as well as the box shape and external alignment ( affects baffle step point), would give a recipe for a 'known' speaker. If the user wants to build a second set with better box, fancy veneer, a wad of stuffing and so on, they they are free to do so, but it would no longer tie to the original recipe, and should not be used for comparisons...
That again was one of the basics behind the LS3/5... the box design was explicitly stipulated in the license, and for it to be a BBC licensed product, it had to follow those details exactly! If we were to persue this route for a 'mini-reference', this would have to be accepted and understood by the builders.
As always, it's a little controversial, but a project like this will have to be compromised - we just have to ensure that the compromises are the same...
Owen |
|
|
| jaudio |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nuuk
This thread is more about human psychology than Gainclones or hi-fi!
It's about not believing in one's own abilities or judgement!
I get loads of questions to DD along the same lines, ie what is the best GC? Basically, people want to have the best GC and they don't want to go through the business of building, testing, listening, trying a variation etc etc. Either they don't want to put the effort in, or they don't trust themselves to be able to determine the 'best' sound when they hear it.
Let's just sum up what would be required to to make a direct comparison.
Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply.
Then we come to the ears and the brain! I wouldn't mind some younger ears but I'm not changing my brain for anybody!
There are some things in life that just don't come on a plate! Accept that and get on with the job - it's the only way to reach your goal. Trying to change the rules of the game may win you the game but it won't make you a better player! :att'n: |
One thing is for sure I will not try or attempt to try every type or implementation of the gainclone or it's variations. I simply don’t have the time.
I believe we all know, we will never get the "best" sound. We are shooting at a moving target, one that will change direction at a dime. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by owen
Stuffing - None.
cabinet - MDF - available everywhere, cheap.
No crossover.
In my experience people try the different materials because of an urge to 'better' the speaker (mdf poor, particle board, better, ply better yet and so on), likewise with the stuffing - and nailing those details, as well as the box shape and external alignment ( affects baffle step point), would give a recipe for a 'known' speaker. If the user wants to build a second set with better box, fancy veneer, a wad of stuffing and so on, they they are free to do so, but it would no longer tie to the original recipe, and should not be used for comparisons...
That again was one of the basics behind the LS3/5... the box design was explicitly stipulated in the license, and for it to be a BBC licensed product, it had to follow those details exactly! If we were to persue this route for a 'mini-reference', this would have to be accepted and understood by the builders.
As always, it's a little controversial, but a project like this will have to be compromised - we just have to ensure that the compromises are the same...
Owen |
I see the point, Owen, and it seems reasonable.
Although IMO a good 2-way is (for me) much prefered to a single driver.
I like the speed, dispersion and linearity of a good dome tweeter, something that a fullrange driver can't give.
But that's my personal view, and you will find others too.
Anyway, don't think that you can guarantee a 'universal' speaker that pleases most people.
We are only discussing the end of the chain (power amp and speakers), while everything behind that (pre and source) is very, very important.
Suppose you propose a very well balanced and neutral sounding speaker. The same for the amp.
Someone will go and build it and report bad results, because he/she uses a bad or unnapropriate pre, or he/she uses a cheap 40$ DVD player as a source, and can't bear the sound of the system playing music.
The problem is, without a reference source (and pre) you may improve the rest of the chain and end up with poor sonic results.
Trash in, trash out, or something is not right.
Jan has just scratched this matter, you need a reference source too.
No, you need a reference system where to test the amp(s).
You can not say for sure that the amp has loose bass if the CDP isn't up to the task. The same for the pre.
This is never ending story, unfortunately.
Someone can always say 'Mmmm... loose bass? Put a decent clock on you CDP and listen again'.
'Mmmm... lack of dynamics? Don't tell me. Do you still have those nasty op-amps on the analog stage of your CDP?'.
Etc., etc., etc. |
|
|
| Jay |
Experienced people will know the situation only from a little or biased
information. The more the information, the better they can make conclusions.
That's why it is important to know the whole setup when a reviewer start
to review performances. If you specifify "I use an SRPP pre-amp to drive
the Gainclone" for example, many will get a clue.
The problem is for newbies, where they cannot interpret reviews the way
experienced people do. But I think it is sufficient to know that many
experienced builders still like to use Gainclone. And that they can justify
the use of cheap amp (Gainclone) with other expensive audio stuffs.
Though may be the enjoyment with Gainclone comes mostly from other stuffs
in the audio chain (eg. Carlos' Epos loudspeaker), it is quite surprising
that many gainclone builders satisfied with their amps.
To be honest, when I first built 3886 amp, tho I decided not to use it,
the result was beyond my expectation. It sounded like $$$ solid state amps.
I used single suplly similar to the application example in the pdf. Point
to-point with as short as possible connection.
But my guess is, someone should use "tested" pre-amp (maybe an op-amp!) to
get the benefit others have got with this amp. I have a feeling that
pre-amp is a determining factor here. So my suggestion (to new builders)
is to follow Carlos path in choosing the pre-amp (I used my best sounding
op-amp pre when I tested the Gainclone for the first time. The regulator
uses op-amp LF356H and Black Gates, mostly BGN. The op-amp is OP70? I
don't remember but it outperformed my other hi-en op-amps in that circuit)
My first impression was:
1. Enjoyable bass authority. Very solid-state. very op-amp (I did use opamps)
2. Rather flat soundstage. |
|
|
| DJNUBZ |
"Same source, same interconnects, same speaker cables and same speakers. Same listieng room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity. Same electricity supply."
I have to disagree with you. If these speakers are used in nearfield the room characteristics, size, shape, furnishings, temperature and humidity play a very minor role. The most I would buy as a realistic problem would be room bass nodes. Though source, ICs, and speaker cables may make a difference but they are small when compared to the amp and speaker. If you want to may things even more "standard" then you could say everyone has to use cat 5 for their speaker wires, internal speaker wires and even IC's if you want to be anal about it.
"the speaker should be of such quality that it can render even the most minute vanishingly small differences"
This isn't exactly true. The speaker should be able to show differences but the point of the speaker is so a group of builders can discuss what changes in the amps make a difference. I don't think it is that important to worrie about differences you can only hear on ultra high end speakers...yet.
CarlosFM you are right that if someone is using substandard gear they may have a problem but most people who are building this amp are not using $40 dvd players to test their DIY projects.
I think that a simple single driver speaker using MDF and cat 5 for speaker wire would be perfect. That TB is a good option but I think we need something w/o componants besides the driver. We want a simple cheap to make speaker that you could possibly build anywhere in the world. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJNUBZ
Though source, ICs, and speaker cables may make a difference but they are small when compared to the amp and speaker. If you want to may things even more "standard" then you could say everyone has to use cat 5 for their speaker wires, internal speaker wires and even IC's if you want to be anal about it. |
The source make a small difference, compared to the amp and speakers?
I assure you it can make a huge difference, on par with the amp/speakers.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJNUBZ
CarlosFM you are right that if someone is using substandard gear they may have a problem but most people who are building this amp are not using $40 dvd players to test their DIY projects. |
I've been following this forum for some years and I can tell you there are lots of people out there (and they say so) that use really cheap dvd players as a source.
Not that there's a problem with that, but this kind of source will have a large impact (degradation) on the sound of the whole system.
Evaluating an amp in this case will be useless, because the better the amp, the worse it will sound. It will unveil all the nastiness. |
|
|
| Nuuk |
| OK, well if I go with the other side of this debate, how about using something like the JBL Control Ones? I think these are widely available, don't cost too much, and sound pretty good for the money! :att'n: |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJNUBZ
[B[snip]"the speaker should be of such quality that it can render even the most minute vanishingly small differences"
This isn't exactly true. The speaker should be able to show differences but the point of the speaker is so a group of builders can discuss what changes in the amps make a difference. I don't think it is that important to worrie about differences you can only hear on ultra high end speakers...yet.
[snip][/B] |
I don't follow you. Why should speakers only allow showing differences 'to a point'? The purpose is to compare amps, and those amp differences normally are smaller than speaker differences, unless you have a REALLY bad amp. So if you are serious, the speaker should be the best you can get to be sure that you catch ALL amp differences, if they are there.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| thomgun_lc |
;) Hi there!!!
I agree with janneman's idea (using headphone). It is impossible to use the same reference to listen our gainclone and give our gc some objective rating:xeye:
i know if an audio have a chain. But at least, we have the same final reference that is loudspeaker. We can using headphone or open baffle fullrange.
Many people here especially newbies get a same psycological effect to give a rating in their gainclone.
If u have an expensive amp but ur loudspeaker very cheap, i'm sure your amp's sound become worse,do you agree with me?:smash:
I classified an audio chain become 3:
SOurce----->Gainclone Amp----->Loudspeaker.
(forget about listening room,other accessories,loudspeaker cable etc)
If we have the same Gainclone and Loudspeaker we have 2/3's part of the audio's chain
regards
---------
TomZ:smash: |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by thomgun_lc
If u have an expensive amp but ur loudspeaker very cheap, i'm sure your amp's sound become worse... |
The reverse is also true.
If we want to be precise, it's not the amp that will sound worse, it's your entire system.
The same happens when you change the source for a much inferior one, everything falls apart. |
|
|
| Jay |
Now the problem is, should we go with the reference speaker, or just
go with a reference power cord and cotton bud?
IMO, speaker and source is the most critical.
With amps, it is often about suitable or not suitable, matched or
not matched with the other stuffs in the audio chain (pre or speaker).
For example, there are expensive amps that sound bad with certain
expensive pre, but sound a lot better with certain pre. There is also
amp that cannot drive certain speaker.
With amps, it is often the amp is required to construct the music,
to color the music, to enhance the music. Less often is it is there
simply to pass the music, doesn't improve or degrade the music, only
do the unimportant simple job, which is to amplify the analog signal.
With source, it is required to go to certain higher level of audio
hi-fi. GIGO, Garbage in garbage out, what the source can produce is
the maximum you can get from upgrading the rest of the audio chain.
No matter how expensive your amp and speaker, $300 CDP will never
sound like $10000 CDP. What you can expect from source is high level
details and soundstage, and a sense of analog in digital equipment.
With amps, it is even more critical, especially with passive x-over.
Inferior speaker can be fixed with help of a suitable amp or other
stuff in the audio chain, but wrongly designed speaker cannot be
fixed.
Remember the old days when we were listening to cheap battery radio
or boom-box, we were able to enjoy the music. That's because the
speaker has no passive crossover. You don't need expensive stuffs
with outstanding image to enjoy the music. But badly designed
speaker, at best it can produce "undistorted" (or smooth to be
precise) sound, but the music goes unnoticed.
Most of us have above $1000 audio system I believe. But how many
of us experience the strong needs to listen to our system? We choose
going to work late because we cannot shut the music off. We can stay
awake all night simply because we love to hear the music. From my
experience, this is all speaker related, not amp or source. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jay
[snip]Remember the old days when we were listening to cheap battery radio or boom-box, we were able to enjoy the music. That's because the speaker has no passive crossover. [snip] |
No. It is because we were listening to the MUSIC.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jay
Remember the old days when we were listening to cheap battery radio or boom-box, we were able to enjoy the music. |
I was born in the end of the 60's and since a kid I always remember having two hi-fi systems, on two rooms.
But I know what you mean, even some of those old valve FM tuners could sound very good.
My father once made a pair of 2-way speakers with drivers scavenged from one of those tuners. And those drivers were very good!
| quote: | Originally posted by Jay
That's because the speaker has no passive crossover. |
I don't agree with this.
I don't agree with the common alergic reaction for passive crossovers, when they can be made as simple as a cap on the tweeter. With the right drivers.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
No. It is because we were listening to the MUSIC.
Jan Didden |
Aha! :angel: |
|
|
| Jay |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
I was born in the end of the 60's and since a kid I always remember having two hi-fi systems, on two rooms.
But I know what you mean, even some of those old valve FM tuners could sound very good.
My father once made a pair of 2-way speakers with drivers scavenged from one of those tuners. And those drivers were very good!
.....
I don't agree with this.
I don't agree with the common alergic reaction for passive crossovers, when they can be made as simple as a cap on the tweeter. With the right drivers.
|
That's not an alergic reaction for passive crossovers. I haven't used active actually. If you can make simple cap on tweeter with the right driver, you won't have the common passive crossover problem. But it will cost me at least $1500 of commercial speaker. I haven't heard Jordan, but some Fostex designs are not up for the task. Doesn't mean that cheaper driver are worse than those.
I prefer to go with hard-to-execute task than choosing a simple task with clear limitation. This means that I prefer 3-way parallel crossover than 2-way series or one cap on tweeter approach. Also means that I prefer mosfet to bipolar (and tube to certain degree). Also means that I prefer oversampling than non-os.
I don't know if you have ever experienced frustration with audio DIY. Building expensive stuffs but cannot enjoy what you know you should enjoy.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
No. It is because we were listening to the MUSIC.
|
Do you mean that now we are trying to listen to the cymbals, triangle, or trying to locate the obo? :D Or worse, now we're trying to listen to depth, soundstage, etc? :devilr: No! That's not me at least. I don't care if the music doesn't sound as it should be as long as it sounds good to my ears.
The problem is we cannot find MUSIC in every system. Sometimes we go tired with the sound (due to cone breakups for example). Sometimes it is just like no music at all (due to phase problem in crossover maybe, or lack of dynamics).
Wide soundstage and flat soundstage is easy to differentiate by ears. But the exact correlation with listening enjoyment is not clear. OTOH, correct crossover and wrong crossover is difficult to differentiate. Sometimes the wrong one seems to be the better one. That's why I always use enjoyment as a measure. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jay
That's not an alergic reaction for passive crossovers. I haven't used active actually. If you can make simple cap on tweeter with the right driver, you won't have the common passive crossover problem. But it will cost me at least $1500 of commercial speaker. I haven't heard Jordan, but some Fostex designs are not up for the task. Doesn't mean that cheaper driver are worse than those.
|
Actually I was not talking about fullranges.
I have a good example of what I said on my main system. The Epos ES11.
But it uses exceptional drivers, made precisely to work this way.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jay
I prefer to go with hard-to-execute task than choosing a simple task with clear limitation. This means that I prefer 3-way parallel crossover than 2-way series or one cap on tweeter approach. Also means that I prefer mosfet to bipolar (and tube to certain degree). Also means that I prefer oversampling than non-os. |
There's a common sense for everything, and planning to make before starting a design.
I prefer to spend my money and time researching, buying and listening to several drivers with a goal in mind: use simple crossovers, they sound SO MUCH better. That goes for active or passive.
I'll give you an example of something I would never do: buying a fancy metal come mid/woofer and then use steep crossovers and notch filters to deal with 10db+ peaks at breakup. |
|
|
|
