Greetings forum,
When I was very young, I had a subscription to 'Stereo Review' and 'Audio' magazine. It was the 80's, and I remember Julian Hirsch, cassette decks that physically flipped their tapes for you, and arc-welding with a Mark Levinson (At least I think it was a Mark Levinson).
The good old days. I really wish I had those old mags for reference now, because some things never change.
A perfect example of this is the fact that I recently picked up the October 2007 issue of 'Stereophile' magazine after a seventeen year hiatus from stereo mags and found Charles Hansen making a most profound statement on page 209/210.
I quote,
'If anyone thinks for a moment that a resistor or capacitor fabricated from a dirty piece of sand (ie, the doped silicon used to fabricate ICs) is a better sounding part than what is available in a discrete form, I can assure you that they are flat-out wrong. If you don't believe me , try to find any company that sells discrete parts made in this fashion. It simply isn't done, as the limitations imposed by these materials make it literally impossible to make high-performance parts in this way...'
- Charles Hansen, Ayre Acoustics
I think it is obvious that high-quality reproduction of the recorded arts comes down to analog... Really, really sweet analog
and very high-quality discrete parts.
With a current trend in retro auto design etc., it seems to me it opens up the sagging high-end audio market for 'retro' amp designs and a return to simple, quality construction, components, and, of course, ginormous heatsinks.
The market seems wide open to the right kind of spiel coupled with the MOSFETs to back it up, especially in the $1000 category. Considering the good ol' 80's tech, I find it hard to believe that discrete semiconductor equipment is fading.
So sad, but maybe that is the greatest legacy DIYaudio.com will leave behind - info to save the dinosaurs!
When I was very young, I had a subscription to 'Stereo Review' and 'Audio' magazine. It was the 80's, and I remember Julian Hirsch, cassette decks that physically flipped their tapes for you, and arc-welding with a Mark Levinson (At least I think it was a Mark Levinson).
The good old days. I really wish I had those old mags for reference now, because some things never change.
A perfect example of this is the fact that I recently picked up the October 2007 issue of 'Stereophile' magazine after a seventeen year hiatus from stereo mags and found Charles Hansen making a most profound statement on page 209/210.
I quote,
'If anyone thinks for a moment that a resistor or capacitor fabricated from a dirty piece of sand (ie, the doped silicon used to fabricate ICs) is a better sounding part than what is available in a discrete form, I can assure you that they are flat-out wrong. If you don't believe me , try to find any company that sells discrete parts made in this fashion. It simply isn't done, as the limitations imposed by these materials make it literally impossible to make high-performance parts in this way...'
- Charles Hansen, Ayre Acoustics
I think it is obvious that high-quality reproduction of the recorded arts comes down to analog... Really, really sweet analog
and very high-quality discrete parts.With a current trend in retro auto design etc., it seems to me it opens up the sagging high-end audio market for 'retro' amp designs and a return to simple, quality construction, components, and, of course, ginormous heatsinks.
The market seems wide open to the right kind of spiel coupled with the MOSFETs to back it up, especially in the $1000 category. Considering the good ol' 80's tech, I find it hard to believe that discrete semiconductor equipment is fading.
So sad, but maybe that is the greatest legacy DIYaudio.com will leave behind - info to save the dinosaurs!
Luddites.
BTW, I have some $2000.00 cables for sale that were hand twisted on Tasmanian Baglewood frames under a full moon by Tibetan monks. I think they sound great with a liquidity and pace that is not possible with lesser cables. But they do have an occasionally annoying artifact. Every time I mention the price I think I can hear the electrons inside them falling down laughing at me .
BTW, I have some $2000.00 cables for sale that were hand twisted on Tasmanian Baglewood frames under a full moon by Tibetan monks. I think they sound great with a liquidity and pace that is not possible with lesser cables. But they do have an occasionally annoying artifact. Every time I mention the price I think I can hear the electrons inside them falling down laughing at me .
audiosteve said:Luddites.
BTW, I have some $2000.00 cables for sale that were hand twisted on Tasmanian Baglewood frames under a full moon by Tibetan monks. I think they sound great with a liquidity and pace that is not possible with lesser cables. But they do have an occasionally annoying artifact. Every time I mention the price I think I can hear the electrons inside them falling down laughing at me .
There is a lot of snake oil salesmen on both sides of audio. So the $2K speaker cables aren't any different than National putting in a sound room and calling the product High-end. Actually I'm currently playing with the National chips and they are interesting. My very early feelings are that they are very low distortion, bottom end is excellent and the sound is extremely clean in the high end but I keep wanting to turn up the system to get a bit of something (how's that for something to chew up). It's like something is over damped.
I'm using it in a MC step up and there are still many variables that might be causing the effect and not the chips. So my jury is still out.
What I'm getting at is spend the $5 a chip and build something. At least you'll have a real opinion only skewed by your own biases and not based on something you've read.
I'm going for an apples to apples comparison of the National chips, the OPA627's (although the ones I just bought didn't work and I'm afraid they are fakes) and a discrete FET design using the exact same power-supplies chassis etc.
The latest Absolute Sound has a report on the chips as well. National's marketing dept is all over this high-end thing. Actually I wouldn't mind if it was true. It might bring High-end performance down out of the stupid buck range where real music lovers could experience it daily. And make it easy to build good stuff.
The amplifier that was welding was the Great American Sound Co. Godzilla. It was done at the CES to promote it's bullet proof design, unfortunately not long after the company proved less than bullet proof.
Regards, Mike.
Hafflerfreak, the article you have mentioned is the same one I started a thread on about a week ago.
I really cannot understand the anti-IC fixation. For starters, what about his company's CD players - the DAC's have got to be IC's! Maybe this is why CD doesn't sound as good as vinyl . . .
So every product ever built out there using an op-amp in the signal path is a pile of you know what . . .
Unless the front end uses compliementary differential FET topology its also a pile of . . . .
Unless the output stage uses Thermatrak . . . .
I really cannot understand the anti-IC fixation. For starters, what about his company's CD players - the DAC's have got to be IC's! Maybe this is why CD doesn't sound as good as vinyl . . .
So every product ever built out there using an op-amp in the signal path is a pile of you know what . . .
Unless the front end uses compliementary differential FET topology its also a pile of . . . .
Unless the output stage uses Thermatrak . . . .
MikeBettinger said:
There is a lot of snake oil salesmen on both sides of audio.
What I'm getting at is spend the $5 a chip and build something. At least you'll have a real opinion only skewed by your own biases and not based on something you've read.
Regards, Mike.
The voice of reason.
..tj
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
I have to agree that one of the most valuable things that can be done in this debate is to perform actual A/B comparisons of similar equipment with different technologies.
BUT!
I have always considered myself very down to earth when it comes to high-end audio. I believe it's all about what you hear - not the number of bells/whistles etc.
I think up to $20/foot is a reasonable investment for high-fi cables, but only for durability/reliability sake.
If you ask me, I think Charles makes a very good point.
--You will never 'hear' digital!! All you have ever heard and ever will hear is analog, so let's get real people. Don't ever forget that the bits are no longer bits when they hit your ear.
So what am I getting at?
Isn't it obvious?
Currently we know of no better way to produce analog sound than speakers. You need raw power to get it right, and I don't think ICs when I think of raw power.
In light of this, I am inclined to agree with Charles on at least a philosophical basis.
I have to agree that one of the most valuable things that can be done in this debate is to perform actual A/B comparisons of similar equipment with different technologies.
BUT!
I have always considered myself very down to earth when it comes to high-end audio. I believe it's all about what you hear - not the number of bells/whistles etc.
I think up to $20/foot is a reasonable investment for high-fi cables, but only for durability/reliability sake.
If you ask me, I think Charles makes a very good point.
--You will never 'hear' digital!! All you have ever heard and ever will hear is analog, so let's get real people. Don't ever forget that the bits are no longer bits when they hit your ear.
So what am I getting at?
Isn't it obvious?
Currently we know of no better way to produce analog sound than speakers. You need raw power to get it right, and I don't think ICs when I think of raw power.
In light of this, I am inclined to agree with Charles on at least a philosophical basis.
If you subsribe to Stereophile, you'll read many interesting "technical" claims made by various equipment manufacturers, which may or may not be solidly grounded.
Example 1:
Charlie Hansen from Ayre mentioned about the need for a burn-in period for preamps to also include the individual channels. Indirectly, that's akin to claiming that burning in the switching block yields noticeable sonic benefits. The switching block in most preamps are at best high quality relays.
Example 2:
Charlie Hansen from Ayre in talking about Ayre's latest monoblock amplifier talks about a secret design related to AC power filtering. It seems that ferrite cores commonly employed as common mode filters degrade sonically over time and some kind of degaussing effect can be used to restore them. All professional recording equipment contain such AC chokes. Does that mean they become inferior over time?
It would be wrong for me to immediately dismiss these claims as marketing because I do not know the subject in depth. However, I would say I'm a little skeptical.
PS: Sorry if I appear to be flaming anyone. That is not my intention, just using someone's claims in particular as examples. All equipment vendors make technical claims extolling the virtues of their designs.
PSS: Back to the original topic, it is interesting to note also that many high quality balanced analog IC's employ laser-trimmed precision resistors to achieve matching better than discrete designs. More interesting is the fact that the so-called "dirty silicon" is made in an environment far cleaner than that of a hospital operating theater.
Example 1:
Charlie Hansen from Ayre mentioned about the need for a burn-in period for preamps to also include the individual channels. Indirectly, that's akin to claiming that burning in the switching block yields noticeable sonic benefits. The switching block in most preamps are at best high quality relays.
Example 2:
Charlie Hansen from Ayre in talking about Ayre's latest monoblock amplifier talks about a secret design related to AC power filtering. It seems that ferrite cores commonly employed as common mode filters degrade sonically over time and some kind of degaussing effect can be used to restore them. All professional recording equipment contain such AC chokes. Does that mean they become inferior over time?
It would be wrong for me to immediately dismiss these claims as marketing because I do not know the subject in depth. However, I would say I'm a little skeptical.
PS: Sorry if I appear to be flaming anyone. That is not my intention, just using someone's claims in particular as examples. All equipment vendors make technical claims extolling the virtues of their designs.
PSS: Back to the original topic, it is interesting to note also that many high quality balanced analog IC's employ laser-trimmed precision resistors to achieve matching better than discrete designs. More interesting is the fact that the so-called "dirty silicon" is made in an environment far cleaner than that of a hospital operating theater.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.