The only reference are your self....................!!!!
You can't just say that one Amp or one RIAA Amp are THE REFERENCE!!!
Why do you think that there are so many different circuits ???
Because we all have our own reference (in our ears and head)
The best thing you can do, is to listen to some different types of Amp's and RIAA's, and the select the ones that YOU like best, and then build your own with similar topology
You can't just say that one Amp or one RIAA Amp are THE REFERENCE!!!
Why do you think that there are so many different circuits ???
Because we all have our own reference (in our ears and head)
The best thing you can do, is to listen to some different types of Amp's and RIAA's, and the select the ones that YOU like best, and then build your own with similar topology
I had the same question once. And I have learnt that the amplifier doesn't create
sound by itself. The most difficult task in the audio is to change analog into waves,
next is from digital to analog. Amplifiers are just to amplify analog flatly from 20Hz
to 20KHz with acceptable distortion, which can be achieved by the cheapest
DIY amplifier here. So mostly we need an amp that is suitable with the speaker,
source, and preamp we use (I don't want to say anything about preferences)
If you talked about speakers of at least $15000, I guess Krell suits more people
than other famous brands do.
My standard DIY amplifiers are the Crescendo, any of the class A amplifier
(Hiraga/JLH), Alephs (this one has different quality), and Musical Fidelity A1. All
have their own implementation. I choose MF A1 simply because I want a good
looking class A amp, which require only side heatsinks (it is class A till 5W or so,
or only 650mA of bias current). If you build the MF A1 with dedicated 15V supply
for the front end (you can find the kit easily in Bandung), it will be a big upgrade.
For average users or most users, class A is ALWAYS better sounding.
sound by itself. The most difficult task in the audio is to change analog into waves,
next is from digital to analog. Amplifiers are just to amplify analog flatly from 20Hz
to 20KHz with acceptable distortion, which can be achieved by the cheapest
DIY amplifier here. So mostly we need an amp that is suitable with the speaker,
source, and preamp we use (I don't want to say anything about preferences)
If you talked about speakers of at least $15000, I guess Krell suits more people
than other famous brands do.
My standard DIY amplifiers are the Crescendo, any of the class A amplifier
(Hiraga/JLH), Alephs (this one has different quality), and Musical Fidelity A1. All
have their own implementation. I choose MF A1 simply because I want a good
looking class A amp, which require only side heatsinks (it is class A till 5W or so,
or only 650mA of bias current). If you build the MF A1 with dedicated 15V supply
for the front end (you can find the kit easily in Bandung), it will be a big upgrade.
For average users or most users, class A is ALWAYS better sounding.
This is a very interesting question. IMO the right sound is the sound that was recorded in the first place (although it is usually impossible to witness the original sound and the hifi system simultaneously to compare them). In other words the amplifier should not sound of anything at all.
So what amplifiers are there today that sound of nothing at all? Probably none, so we just end up choosing which has the most palatable sound pollution and this is subject to individual taste.
What you can do as a designer is learn to identify types of pollution by listening to several designs and lots of music. We are conditioned to believe that hifi won't sound real so to train your brain to spot problems requires some effort. Like if you watch TV you don't for a moment think the picture is real. But it takes some thinking to describe all the ways it is different from reality. With audio the same thinking is needed but it is more difficult to identify and define the differences. Over time you can learn and it becomes easy to identify and discriminate amplifier problems vs speaker and CD and so on.
Hi lumanauw,
I think your first DIY amp starts out as your reference then as you build better ones you change your reference amp to the better one.
I've built a few amps over the last few years, about 8, and first one is still the best, so it's still my reference amp. Just start building, from my experience they will all sound good, just some have that little "something" that make them just that little bit better.
I haven't completed a class A amp yet so I can't directly compare them to my class AB and chip amps. I have heard a couple though and was impressed.
I think your first DIY amp starts out as your reference then as you build better ones you change your reference amp to the better one.
I've built a few amps over the last few years, about 8, and first one is still the best, so it's still my reference amp. Just start building, from my experience they will all sound good, just some have that little "something" that make them just that little bit better.
I haven't completed a class A amp yet so I can't directly compare them to my class AB and chip amps. I have heard a couple though and was impressed.
Hi, Jay, apa kabar?
Dimana saya bisa beli K389 di Jakarta?
It maybe confusing more. Some amps are good for classic music, some good for county, some good for disco, etc. I have experienced this. Is there really no perfect sounding amp?
While some are seriously in class A with huge heat, some says chip amps are good. This is really confusing too.
Dimana saya bisa beli K389 di Jakarta?
It maybe confusing more. Some amps are good for classic music, some good for county, some good for disco, etc. I have experienced this. Is there really no perfect sounding amp?
While some are seriously in class A with huge heat, some says chip amps are good. This is really confusing too.
you forgot to preface all the unqualified, uncontrolled subjective reports of amplifier differences with "some say..."
double blind comparision of amps that are measurably the same in freq response, output Z and matched for listening level do not reveal any audible differences - there is an uncollected US$ 10 K bet out there for anyone who can tell the difference in controlled listening test
double blind comparision of amps that are measurably the same in freq response, output Z and matched for listening level do not reveal any audible differences - there is an uncollected US$ 10 K bet out there for anyone who can tell the difference in controlled listening test
Here's an idea from Siegried Linkwitz's site. www.linkwitzlab.com It is intended to apply to speakers but there might be an appliocation to amps as well. It is on the page where he discusses headphones, which he does not care for much, as a tool for training himself to evaluate what a speaker should sound like. The reason is that good headphones have much lower distortion, coloration, etc than any speaker. The one quirk is that you have to locate your personal ear canal resonant prequency and cancel it.
It you take this on step further and note that good headphone amps (not neccessarily the most expensive) are potentially almost (harmonicly) distortionless because the gain is typically low. (Just like an opamp at unity gain or near unity gain exihibts few little or no harminics.) Since headphone produce very high sound levels with only a few mW there should be no headroom issues, no clipping and slew rates and damping factor requirments are easily met.
An AB or ABX test with a vs. a regular amp would not be possible but an approach that offers the potential to get as close to the original source material than any other means. Pewrsonally I don't like listening to headphones much but I'm thinking og trying out Linkwitz's notion of using them as a "reference".
It you take this on step further and note that good headphone amps (not neccessarily the most expensive) are potentially almost (harmonicly) distortionless because the gain is typically low. (Just like an opamp at unity gain or near unity gain exihibts few little or no harminics.) Since headphone produce very high sound levels with only a few mW there should be no headroom issues, no clipping and slew rates and damping factor requirments are easily met.
An AB or ABX test with a vs. a regular amp would not be possible but an approach that offers the potential to get as close to the original source material than any other means. Pewrsonally I don't like listening to headphones much but I'm thinking og trying out Linkwitz's notion of using them as a "reference".
I like to design my own amps. Not just copy other's schematic. Seeing other schematics are the fastest way to learn, if the other option is to learn from textbooks. Many things in textbook are not giving good sounding result.
I maybe wrong. But in my opinion to get radical sounding amp, we must have radical topologies. Like if we insisted to use 3 stages power amp (differential, VAS, current amp), no matter how much we make variation of it (changing bias, changing component, quality, etc), the result will not be radical improvement. There is a certain sound of a certain topology that cannot be left aside.
In my opinion, an amplifier must have a certain "Soundmark", for people to remember it. I've heard Single Ended 300B, pushpull tubes, aleph, current feedback amp (modern definition), Mark Levinson ref. #33 (or 333? takes 6 people to lift one monoblock), Gryphone, GAMUT, densen, non feedback amp, crown, qsc, MC2, hafler, Sansui, Yamaha, etc.etc.etc.etc. just amp in many class and many price range.
And not many put memory in my head. If right now I'm asked what is the sound of "this or that" amp? Even when I heard it I feel it was good, but it is too ordinary that I tend to forgot the comment of that amp.
Is a good amp is the one that is "too ordinary" because it "makes no sound"?
I agree with that. Is this mean pro-audio amps (like Crown, QSC, MC2) is the reference? But they seems to have different tonal balance, if we use them in home audio.
I maybe wrong. But in my opinion to get radical sounding amp, we must have radical topologies. Like if we insisted to use 3 stages power amp (differential, VAS, current amp), no matter how much we make variation of it (changing bias, changing component, quality, etc), the result will not be radical improvement. There is a certain sound of a certain topology that cannot be left aside.
In my opinion, an amplifier must have a certain "Soundmark", for people to remember it. I've heard Single Ended 300B, pushpull tubes, aleph, current feedback amp (modern definition), Mark Levinson ref. #33 (or 333? takes 6 people to lift one monoblock), Gryphone, GAMUT, densen, non feedback amp, crown, qsc, MC2, hafler, Sansui, Yamaha, etc.etc.etc.etc. just amp in many class and many price range.
And not many put memory in my head. If right now I'm asked what is the sound of "this or that" amp? Even when I heard it I feel it was good, but it is too ordinary that I tend to forgot the comment of that amp.
Is a good amp is the one that is "too ordinary" because it "makes no sound"?
I agree with that. Is this mean pro-audio amps (like Crown, QSC, MC2) is the reference? But they seems to have different tonal balance, if we use them in home audio.
lumanauw said:
In other words, dare I say it, "they all sounded pretty much the same"....? What were you expecting?
As amplifiers get more and more 'perfect', I would expect them to sound more and more alike. A reference amplifier will have as little character as possible, surely?
This is certainly not how it works with beer!
Cheers
IH
What am I expecting? Hmmmm....
I have a friend who has a recording studio with state of the art equipment. Somehow I hear the real music instrument is more enjoyfull than amp reproduction. In real, like the cymbal beeing hit, it does not produces the highest frequency (like home audio can), but more pleasant to ears. The music they are playing are more "get to the heart".
Some home system can do this, makes wants to cry just only listening and beeing taken by the music. But not many of them.
If the amp design until now has reach the "perfect" stage, what is the weak point in home audio. Why it cannot immitate real live music 100%? Is it the speakers?
Opera can make people cry. But listening to opera reproduction in home audio do not make such incredible impact to the listeners.
I have a friend who has a recording studio with state of the art equipment. Somehow I hear the real music instrument is more enjoyfull than amp reproduction. In real, like the cymbal beeing hit, it does not produces the highest frequency (like home audio can), but more pleasant to ears. The music they are playing are more "get to the heart".
Some home system can do this, makes wants to cry just only listening and beeing taken by the music. But not many of them.
If the amp design until now has reach the "perfect" stage, what is the weak point in home audio. Why it cannot immitate real live music 100%? Is it the speakers?
Opera can make people cry. But listening to opera reproduction in home audio do not make such incredible impact to the listeners.
To be honest, I prefer using the same type of listening gear as they do in the studios. The recording are mixed using this type of gear, and I feel that the sound of the recordings seems much more "alive", when played on the same gear.
Thats why I'm so fund of my Amcrons DC300A II Power Amps. Listening to live recordings over these amps, are almost as being there.....
Thats why I'm so fund of my Amcrons DC300A II Power Amps. Listening to live recordings over these amps, are almost as being there.....
"To be honest, I prefer using the same type of listening gear as they do in the studios. The recording are mixed using this type of gear, and I feel that the sound of the recordings seems much more "alive", when played on the same gear."
This leads to a philosophical question. Sometimes (often) they know that the track will be listened to at home or in a car with equipment having different characteristics. Foe example: I have one CD in mind that has obnoxiously boosted low bass if you listen to it with a system that includes a reasonably well matched subwoofer. Disconnect the sub and use more or less ordinary main speakers and the CD sounds much better. Obviously the engineers were trying to anticipate what the average persons system was like and make compensations. In the studio, I imagine they heard pretty much what I did.
So how do you deal with a CD that was recorded with the intention to sound best on average home systems rather than studio gear.
This leads to a philosophical question. Sometimes (often) they know that the track will be listened to at home or in a car with equipment having different characteristics. Foe example: I have one CD in mind that has obnoxiously boosted low bass if you listen to it with a system that includes a reasonably well matched subwoofer. Disconnect the sub and use more or less ordinary main speakers and the CD sounds much better. Obviously the engineers were trying to anticipate what the average persons system was like and make compensations. In the studio, I imagine they heard pretty much what I did.
So how do you deal with a CD that was recorded with the intention to sound best on average home systems rather than studio gear.
"So how do you deal with a CD that was recorded with the intention to sound best on average home systems rather than studio gear."
I must say, that almost 90% of the CD's in my collection sounds better using the Amcrons than other gears like DENON POA's or Densen etc.... Especially since I'm a big fan of live recordings
However I have a few CD's (pop music) that sounds better using ordinary audio gear...
I must say, that almost 90% of the CD's in my collection sounds better using the Amcrons than other gears like DENON POA's or Densen etc.... Especially since I'm a big fan of live recordings
However I have a few CD's (pop music) that sounds better using ordinary audio gear...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.