I think its called a 'mid life crisis'. With hindsight, its not too surprising I became a beach bum but it wasn't obvious at the time. I always thought I'd end up in Melbourne or Sydney.
Last edited:
Thanks for the encouragement, Wrinkle, I'm starting to get the groove on what's available; haven't got hold of the trial yet, but the documentation is very enlightening. Plus, there's Agilent and Sonnet -- thoughts on those ...?
Frank
Mr. Marsh, the Celestion A3 might satisfy your taste for LF extension & low distortion. They appear on eBay now & then and you can still get them serviced.
They also look the part.
Thanks for reminding me of these, Pheonix.
Last edited:
Well, its friday and I promised an exam. However, I am pretty darn sure that most of you are completely unprepared for one, as I would have expected.
You see, very few people are REALLY interested in doing or even understanding exotic measurements like the Hirata test, they just like to pick and poke at the very idea that the test might give some interesting results.
To them, audio electronics is relatively easy, and this is proven by ABX double-blind tests between one component and another, and invariably getting NULL results. They take this NULL result as PROOF that there are no significant differences in audio equipment from the mid fi level to the very best, if a reasonable attempt was to make it accurately in the first place.
This is where my colleagues and I depart from their belief. We find that a good deal of subtle difference in audio equipment is beyond both MEASUREMENT (at this time) and ABX listening testing.
This is WHY we pursue different 'upgrades' and encourage others to do so, as well.
It is a bit like getting a pretty good car, and 'upgrading' it with better tires and perhaps a new 'chip' for example, to get more 'performance'. In the old days, like 50 years ago, we used to 'upgrade' autos a bit more, with multiple carburetors, hot ignitions, different shocks, and even increasing the compression ratio and changing the camshaft. Today, we are stuck with minor external upgrades, and we hope that the auto manufacturers have done their job properly.
In audio electronics, we don't always KNOW whether a specific design is going to be a 'winner' or a 'loser'. I know that this disturbs people who want to KNOW what is what, but in audio, a measurement or two will not tell you EVERYTHING you need, even though the measurements are important to eliminate some of the big problems, in advance.
If this were not so, then we (my colleagues and I) would have surrendered to the IC's virtually exclusively, why not? For example, I listening tested the first batch of 5534's back in 1977, and I heard a difference between the IC and a discrete design, so I stuck with discrete designs for making studio boards, master tape recorders, preamps and finally power amps, when it would have been SO MUCH EASIER to use the IC's, and I would have preferred to use the IC's, IF I could make the same audio quality with them.
Now, decades have passed and even better IC's are available. That is good, and I do try to use them, and I am reasonably successful, but they will not completely duplicate a Vendetta Phono Stage, or a CTC Blowtorch. They just won't, at this time.
Moreover, the point of this tread is to talk about the ADDED factors to a great audio design, not just the circuit topology, or whether it is made from IC's or discrete. I hope to keep it that way.
You see, very few people are REALLY interested in doing or even understanding exotic measurements like the Hirata test, they just like to pick and poke at the very idea that the test might give some interesting results.
To them, audio electronics is relatively easy, and this is proven by ABX double-blind tests between one component and another, and invariably getting NULL results. They take this NULL result as PROOF that there are no significant differences in audio equipment from the mid fi level to the very best, if a reasonable attempt was to make it accurately in the first place.
This is where my colleagues and I depart from their belief. We find that a good deal of subtle difference in audio equipment is beyond both MEASUREMENT (at this time) and ABX listening testing.
This is WHY we pursue different 'upgrades' and encourage others to do so, as well.
It is a bit like getting a pretty good car, and 'upgrading' it with better tires and perhaps a new 'chip' for example, to get more 'performance'. In the old days, like 50 years ago, we used to 'upgrade' autos a bit more, with multiple carburetors, hot ignitions, different shocks, and even increasing the compression ratio and changing the camshaft. Today, we are stuck with minor external upgrades, and we hope that the auto manufacturers have done their job properly.
In audio electronics, we don't always KNOW whether a specific design is going to be a 'winner' or a 'loser'. I know that this disturbs people who want to KNOW what is what, but in audio, a measurement or two will not tell you EVERYTHING you need, even though the measurements are important to eliminate some of the big problems, in advance.
If this were not so, then we (my colleagues and I) would have surrendered to the IC's virtually exclusively, why not? For example, I listening tested the first batch of 5534's back in 1977, and I heard a difference between the IC and a discrete design, so I stuck with discrete designs for making studio boards, master tape recorders, preamps and finally power amps, when it would have been SO MUCH EASIER to use the IC's, and I would have preferred to use the IC's, IF I could make the same audio quality with them.
Now, decades have passed and even better IC's are available. That is good, and I do try to use them, and I am reasonably successful, but they will not completely duplicate a Vendetta Phono Stage, or a CTC Blowtorch. They just won't, at this time.
Moreover, the point of this tread is to talk about the ADDED factors to a great audio design, not just the circuit topology, or whether it is made from IC's or discrete. I hope to keep it that way.
I don't see this as a good analogy, John.
First: Blind testing a car's driving ability is not a good idea.
Second: Add a different cam, hotter ignition or just tires and a chip and it's pretty easy to measure the differences. Faster on the 1/4 mile or around the track or not? Would you put money on it?
Audio isn't so obvious, at least to some.
I remember the "over-clocking" of cars to defeat the federal polution quidelines. Anti-social behavior IMHO.
How about someone taking the op-amps that registered nothing in Ron's test and seeing if anything shows up in the Hirata test before we waste any time on this.
Very similar IMO: the spread spectrum clocking of things to allow higher emissions, but energy harder to measure and slipping below mandated thresholds. Yet our EM environment gets noisier and noisier.
Scott, you have to try to UNDERSTAND what the Hirata test measures, before you can say anything about it. It probably will NOT show a problem with a typical IC.
Interestingly enough, it shows more problems in older discrete solid state power amp designs, and few problems with tube amps. I can give an example, in future, when people are made a little more aware of the test.
Interestingly enough, it shows more problems in older discrete solid state power amp designs, and few problems with tube amps. I can give an example, in future, when people are made a little more aware of the test.
No SY, just with your double blind listenings, will they sound the same. In my experience, there is still a sonic difference between 'good' IC's and the best discrete designs, so I continue making the best discrete designs that I can, in parallel with the best IC based designs that I can. Over the decades, we have tried: specific IC types, cherry picked IC's, specific manufacturers of a particular IC (like the 5534), and hybrid discrete and IC combinations. None have proven to be as good as the best all discrete designs.
Last edited:
Well, some of us trust our ears. You choose not to. That's your right.
Nonetheless, what's the point you're trying to make about measurement? What does the Hirata measurement get you that others don't, and if (as you claim) it doesn't correlate with listening (since it shows that conventionally engineered ICs are fine), what's the point of it?
Nonetheless, what's the point you're trying to make about measurement? What does the Hirata measurement get you that others don't, and if (as you claim) it doesn't correlate with listening (since it shows that conventionally engineered ICs are fine), what's the point of it?
About 30 years ago, Dr. Hirata published another paper that showed the differences between a number of discrete amplifier designs, both tube and transistor. It made a difference in these cases. As I recall, the best amp was the Marantz tube 8B, and the worst amp measured was the Crown DC-300. Why? That is the question. It was certainly different than harmonic distortion tests made with the same components, that tended to predict the opposite result.
This is WHY we like to note and even develop tests that show SOMETHING not seen by harmonic distortion measurements and its relatives, like IM.
This is WHY we like to note and even develop tests that show SOMETHING not seen by harmonic distortion measurements and its relatives, like IM.
It is a good thing to developp measurements procedures able to show more objectively what we can hear. But one thing is for sure, if we don't know yet what to measure to represent all the things we can hear, NOTHING we can hear can go against law of physics.... "Burning cable ?" 'Sens of cables with AC" ?
Again and again, there is so many points where we can improve the parts (bandwidth, distortion, linearity etc...) in a way we can SEE and HEAR, even in blind tests, that the most elementary sense of logic (i mean for people doted of minimal intelligence) drive-us to work on it first before using blind magic.
Here is the logic:
1. What can be better than eternal love?
2. Nothing can be better than eternal love.
3. Is hamburger better than noting?
4. Yes, hamburger is better than nothing.
5. Conclusion: hamburger is better than eternal love.
And then I sold it -
Years ago, I supercharged a V8 engine and did everything known to mankind and else where to it as well as to the whole car to take more power, stop faster, handle better etc. ... it was still street drivable... though I could accelearate so hard, it would lift the front tires. It produced some great numbers on many tests. BUT - I couldnt then drive it on the street because I couldnt get it to pass smog tests anymore. The measurments all looked good from a dyno perspective, etc. Other tests it didnt pass. Subjectively great, test-wise a no-go.
It took me almost 5 years and 4 brands of car computors and special hi-flow cat converters and it did pass the smog tests and got it 'approved' for licensing. It didnt run or handle any better but met the numbers and was clean. Then I sold it. Does any of this sound familiar to audio mods and upgrades? Thx-RNMarsh
Years ago, I supercharged a V8 engine and did everything known to mankind and else where to it as well as to the whole car to take more power, stop faster, handle better etc. ... it was still street drivable... though I could accelearate so hard, it would lift the front tires. It produced some great numbers on many tests. BUT - I couldnt then drive it on the street because I couldnt get it to pass smog tests anymore. The measurments all looked good from a dyno perspective, etc. Other tests it didnt pass. Subjectively great, test-wise a no-go.
It took me almost 5 years and 4 brands of car computors and special hi-flow cat converters and it did pass the smog tests and got it 'approved' for licensing. It didnt run or handle any better but met the numbers and was clean. Then I sold it. Does any of this sound familiar to audio mods and upgrades? Thx-RNMarsh
As noticed, my message was wrote for people with minimal intelligence too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.