So where is the audiophile direction in diy?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Pardon a newbie asking broad questions, but I really couldn't find my answer with searches.

What solid state diy designs are suitable for audiophiles? What I'm getting at is that single chip designs like the LM3886 don't seem to designed for audiophiles, judging by the THD specs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and not that I wouldn't build one...

I'm very handy with electronics, not scared of high component counts and discrete components, and would only be interested in audiophile designs, building better than what I've bought. So where should I be looking on this forum?
 
IMHO, THD is not typically a determining factor of "audiophile" equipment. Transparency, coloration(or lack of), stage, and linearity are more defining qualities. SS designs aside, there are many tube designs that have levels of THD that are scoffed at by SS fans, then tube fans in turn announce listenability is the real factor that qualifies equipment as "audiophile". And on and on the battle rages. My point is if this battle can be so heated, how can THD be a disqualifier?
 
leadbelly said:
Pardon a newbie asking broad questions, but I really couldn't find my answer with searches.
What solid state diy designs are suitable for audiophiles?

"Audiophileness" is more like a matter of taste I think, rather than performance.

I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic" just because it doesn't meet certain standards in the "audiophile" business, no Black Gate caps, no tubes, no tantal resistors, no weird cables, no single end, no oscure semiconductors etc.
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Re: Re: So where is the audiophile direction in diy?

peranders said:

[snip]I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic" just because it doesn't meet certain standards in the "audiophile" business, no Black Gate caps, no tubes, no tantal resistors, no weird cables, no single end, no oscure semiconductors etc.

Per,

Since your purpose is to get the best possible sound, I for one regard your designs as quite audiophilic.

Jan Didden
 
The Leach Amp, designed by W. Marshall Leach at the Georgia Institute of Technology is an"audiophile" amplifier, IMHO. Go to http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/lowtim/ for information. Like the Pass designs, there is a lot of support available, and the PWBs are available directly from Dr. Leach for a modest fee, and the design is almost bulletproof. I think there are things that can be done to improve the design, and many of those have been recently discussed here.

The Leach Amp is one of the more complicated designs you will find and it gets favorable reviews. Several of the Pass designs are a current rage here, being Class A, simpler and lower in power, but possibly superior in sound. Your choice might depend upon the efficiency of your speakers and which design you think is "the coolest".

Have fun deciding what to do. Just because there has been a lot of talk here of chip designs - and they have their place, no question about that - hardly means we don't get into the deep mysteries of amplifier design. Witness the recent thread on servo amplifier design! Also, look around and you will find discussion on which types of capacitors and resistors are "best". There may be no clear answers, but it is fun to think about and consider what choices you will make, as many people feel that those choices will impact the sound as much as will your choice of amplifier topology.
 
Re: Re: Re: So where is the audiophile direction in diy?

janneman said:
Since your purpose is to get the best possible sound, I for one regard your designs as quite audiophilic.

I think also that many people here (and elsewhere) sometimes exaggerate their impressions of different designs. NE5534 really sucks and OPAxyz makes your life worth living etc.

I can hear small small differencies between my stone age DENON DCD-1500 (1985) and my DCD-1520 (1989?) and DAC with CS4328 chip. Small differencies between all but I won't puke when I listen to DCD-1500 with real LC filters but I get a little happier when listen to my DAC.

I can say without blushing that NE5534 is really good but as an electronic designer I think it's cooler to have more precision in everything. 1% resistors are more fun than 5% carbon. 2.5% polypropulene caps or funnier than 10% polyester etc.

Since we talk DIY we have different motives. Some people like doing something others want a good thing beyond their budget (if they had bought the stuff).

The main thing is to have fun.
 
Re: Re: So where is the audiophile direction in diy?

peranders said:


"Audiophileness" is more like a matter of taste I think, rather than performance.

I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic" just because it doesn't meet certain standards in the "audiophile" business, no Black Gate caps, no tubes, no tantal resistors, no weird cables, no single end, no oscure semiconductors etc.

And I would ad: too many parts.;)
 
I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic"

If your don't believe that good passive parts and good semiconductors (like the toshiba and IR fets for example) make a difference then what does? The designs seem overly complicated which flys in the face of the principle of simple circuits with carefully chosen semicondutors as championed by Nelson Pass and others here. I am curious as to why you consider them better than an exercise in mediocrity. What makes one audio circuit better than another in your ears or do all audio circuits that measure reasonbly well sound alike?
 
leadbelly said:
I'm very handy with electronics, not scared of high component counts and discrete components, and would only be interested in audiophile designs, building better than what I've bought. So where should I be looking on this forum?

Many components are nothing to be scared of as long as the design is tidy and .....well-designed. The best thing in order to succeed is to understand the design as much as possible. Prof. Leach has done a good job in explaning his amp.
 
Re: I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic"

SornilltheWhite said:
If your don't believe that good passive parts and good semiconductors (like the toshiba and IR fets for example) make a difference then what does?

My main idea was that everything must be easily avaible and in Sweden it's www.elfa.se That's why I haven't started to design in "better" parts. I have nothing against high performance semiconductors but they must be easy to get. It's a real drag to design in parts which are hopeless to get in hold of. Most of my design can take advantage of better parts so if you want to change to THATS super low noise transistors I thinks that quite possible.

And Peter, it's fun to do something crazy. My monster things are quite crazy. Have you checked my huge pcb for my headphone amp? Take Circlotron for an example and his bauta inductor class A amp.
 
I think there is no single answer for your question. You must decide what parameters are important to you. For example, THD may be the most important item, or Maximum Output Power (Watts), Minimum size may be a factor in what you build at this point in time (has any one worked on a 4"x4"x4" 100 Watt amp?).
I think an Audiophile is someone who keeps redoing what they (or others) have done before to try to make an improvement (in their opinion), they are just doing that with Audio equiptment. Others may do it in oil paint or sculpture!
There are certain Amps I would like to build now but cost and other time commitments override my desires.
The most important thing is that you are trying to go forward and learn - don't stop.
 
Re: Re: So where is the audiophile direction in diy?

peranders said:


"Audiophileness" is more like a matter of taste I think, rather than performance.

I think very few people regard my stuff as "audiophilic" just because it doesn't meet certain standards in the "audiophile" business, no Black Gate caps, no tubes, no tantal resistors, no weird cables, no single end, no oscure semiconductors etc.

...only excellent engineering;)
 
Who is to define ??

One rather important question in my mind, is who is to define upon the others what is audiophile and what is not ??
And by whos authority does the "definers" do what they do ??
For a great number of years now, also in the "reputable" magazines, there has been a recognizable trend that the loudest talking "definers" ( self appointed ??) are very often lacking any theorethical background in technology, be it physics or electronics. They rely solely on their more or less golden ears, and their opinion is not to be debated on any way. ( Like theatrical or litterary critics ???? )

During my professional life in electronics, I have met a number of outstanding amateurs, with a very solid knowledge of electronics, and some of these people can really do marvels in circuit design, - but there is often no way of getting a teorethical explanation of the end result, - the output signal.
We see the same in almost all other discuccions in this field, -- cables probably being the most prominent of these topics.....

By all means- there is nothing wrong in using your ( or our ) ears as the final reference. That is exactly what we have been telling each other to do for years now, - but what I often find missing, is the technological foundation for what we hear,- at least a minor try to find an explanation that has a basis in well founded theory.
We often hear them say " Well---there is a great difference between theory and practice". It is not,- IMO. The difficulty lies in controlling and defining all active parameters when you move from theory to practice, and vice versa.

What is then the definition of "audiophile" ?? The highest possible count of esoteric components? The minimum all over component count? The absence of ICs?? The price tag ??
I would really love to see a conclusive definition!!

My own opinion slants towards the only logical solution-- good old fashioned solid engineering!! With a well sounding result !!
This board is very much centered on the work of "the one and only", and his ( and his co-op's ) work also seems to be based on these ideas-- along with a solid understanding of the circuit at hand. Little or no esoterics,-- necesseary components only,-- etc.etc.
But of course,- luck *can* strike also in electronic design....but in the long run , only hard work matters!

Who decides then,- in the end ??
We all do, - each for one of us, -and all together, if possible at all. If you like what you do, what you hear, what you see, then do it! If, - for some reason there is something about it you don't like, well OK. Do something about it, - by all means ask the mebers of this board, and others too, for opinions. But don't let go of your own judgement,- it is your decision!
Never mind the "cry babies"!!! Search for the truth, -even if it is your very own!

Have nice day,- and have fun with what your doing!!
I will also take this opportunity to thank Nelson Pass for his very open mind and his great gererousity in sharing his ideas with the DIY community.

Best regards
 
Audiophiliac ???

Having thought about it for a couple of hours, - i realize that my other post is not off topic, but maybe in another direction than what the thread starter really asks for..
Nothing makes me hit the roof more than all the selfappointed, quasi religious all-knowers of any kind, frantically fighting away all other arguments than their own......( well-- maybe some politicians I know of......)

But seriously,- is there a possibillity for a , maybe slightly academic, discussion of what criteria that deserves to be used as basis for the definition of what might be audiophile and what is not..?? ;)
 
Re: Audiophiliac ???

AuroraB said:
Nothing makes me hit the roof more than all the selfappointed, quasi religious all-knowers of any kind, frantically fighting away all other arguments than their own....

Easy now......audiophiles ARE selfappointed, quasi religious all-knowers.......!

You can never win but you can interchange opinions, that's something.
 
Re: Who is to define ??

AuroraB said:
One rather important question in my mind, is who is to define upon the others what is audiophile and what is not ??
And by whos authority does the "definers" do what they do ??
For a great number of years now, also in the "reputable" magazines, there has been a recognizable trend that the loudest talking "definers" ( self appointed ??) are very often lacking any theorethical background in technology, be it physics or electronics. They rely solely on their more or less golden ears, and their opinion is not to be debated on any way.

Since you come from Norway, do you read the danish magazine High-Fidelity? Have you noticed that they always talks 95% good (or even extatic) and 5 % bad about just everything. They never talk 57 % good and 43% bad! Also note that they never can talk 100% good and 0% bad! Why? Otherwise they didn't get any advertizers.
 
Yes, -- I do read High Fidelity,-- for more than 30 years now.....
It used to be good, - but now.....( hush: the self appointed might hear us...to much Eye Fi, for my likings..)
If it wasn't for the enclosed record, which often points to records I otherwise would not have chance to test or hear , I think I would stop buing HF... ( I live way north.....)

I do agree that the definitions of audiophile is to some degree self appointed,.
OTOH- there must be some consensus to find as to what criteria we use..??
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.