For a start, please note that I used "accuracy" terminology instead of "detail/transparency". All high end speakers have transparency but mostly not accurate.
That I see totally different. The 'quality'of a singer, or a musician, can easily be judged on a mediocre system. The things that separate a good artist from a bad one have nothing to do with the quality of the reproduction system. As I mentioned before, I can totally get goosebumps from a good piece of music playing on the kitchen radio.
Jan
Yup. The point I'm presenting is exactly the "opposite" of that.
I know your point of view. Unfortunately, it is my pov that needs to be "studied".
As can be read from my posts. I divided transparent or detailed from accurate. Semantically I may be wrong, but I need to draw the line between different things to better explain the issue. Hopefully not as confusing as my English grammar hehe
I have learned a lot from your and Charles Hansen's topologies. The power amplifiers designed on their basis are the best sounding power amplifiers I have ever had and they perform excellent in comparative listening tests with anything available. Your topology with multiple output pairs and global feedback is a winner in case of heavy loudspeaker load.
Yes, JFETs are much less noisier and more linear than input MOSFETs. Anyway, I need to bias each of the input parts at more than 30mA. This would need the parts that are an unobtainium now or many parts in parallel. MOSFETs have one advantage, they are even more resistant against EMI/RFI than JFETs.
The non-NFB design measures worse, that's right, of course. It is still very decent at low power and it keeps profile with fast decaying higher harmonics up to maximum power. The distortion is 1% at maximum power and is completely flat with frequency, probably for the reason that output devices with lower non-linear capacitances are used. The output is limited to 100W/4ohm then, which is enough for my living room, but of course not enough for presentations with 30 people at a large hall. Something like a 'chamber music' amplifier
.I completely agree with your design philosophy stated as:
- balanced is better than single ended
- complementary symmetry is the best
- class A as much as possible (but based on number of optimally biased output pairs)
- JFETs are best input devices
- MOSFETs are best drivers
- avoid high order harmonics
Pavel,
My I ask what the features of a complementary symmetrical design are that better when compared to a similar SE design ?
Would it be that having two active devices simultaneously pulling & pushing is just a little bit faster ( therefore more stable ) than having one active device and a CCS for example ?
Also I am curious how you have found PSRR compares between these two options ( if indeed there is a general rule for this )
Did you have to match your parts carefully to achieve cancellation of distortion ?
mike
My I ask what the features of a complementary symmetrical design are that better when compared to a similar SE design ?
Would it be that having two active devices simultaneously pulling & pushing is just a little bit faster ( therefore more stable ) than having one active device and a CCS for example ?
Also I am curious how you have found PSRR compares between these two options ( if indeed there is a general rule for this )
Did you have to match your parts carefully to achieve cancellation of distortion ?
mike
Last edited:
I have tried and compared both (differential x complementary differential). My only recommendation is - in case you are seriously interested in it, do the same. Yes, it is time consuming and it is a lot of work. But it is the only way how to get ANSWERS. I do not intend to start further debate for debate.
Indeed, as of late, I've been using some recordings of myself playing.
I don't get the idea of the hifi system as something which allows me to judge musical worth- that's the job of the musician. The difference in using an excellent hifi system is that I can tell, for example, that the guitar is a Martin D-28 with medium gauge flat wound brass strings and that the player was in the front of the group by several feet (when the engineer has recording things correctly, of course). A great guitarist will produce great music on a beat-up Silvertone played through a beat-up 3" paper speaker on the dashboard of a Chevy, and there will be no doubt. Play a recording of me through the highest of high end and I'll sound just as amateurish.
My favorite review of one of her concerts was, "Streisand doesn't 'sell' a song, she wrestles it to the ground and plants her foot on its throat."
One of my major arbiters when judging a system/amp/preamp/DAC/cable/speaker etc, is vocals reproduction.
This can be singing accompanied by music, or spoken word recordings or radio broadcasts.....FM, DAB+, or AM even.
When a system is sitting 'right', the vocals sound 'right'.
It is very useful to know the unamplified in person sound/tonality of a particular performers speaking voice, and also their live performance vocal when judging a playback system using recordings of that performer.
On the subject of detail/transparency, I find that when a system is sounding 'right', interesting nuances in performers' voices are nakedly revealed.
For example, Blondie, has an interesting little lisp in her vocal delivery, that is not evident on lesser playback systems.
Many other performers also have interesting speech defects that are not revealed on typical systems.
Aussie members will get this....John Farnham's voice is effected to the max.
His stage mic connects directly into his own effects rack (mic pre, compressor, limiter, eq, aural exciter etc), and he won't perform without that particular effects rack.
The output of that rack sounds like the JF voice that we all know in his recordings.
The input of that rack sounds like the husky, forced, weak voice that we know from his spoken voice on the judging panel of likes of 'Hey, Hey It's Saturday'.
So, knowing his natural speaking voice, on a really good system, this husky, weak vocal is still evident despite all his effects units.
It takes a good system to reveal this, and a system that is falsely 'detailed/transparent' will draw attention to such vocal details, but they are exaggerated, and vocals won't sound quite like the real thing, and are subtlety unnatural.
Other sound sources that I use as arbiters, are cymbals, snare, toms, and kick..all too often cymbals splash, hash and flare, toms don't attack and ring correctly, snares sound like a burst of noise, and kicks that don't.
Individual violins, and massed violins are another arbiter.
On good gear, massed violins are individual, on lesser gear they are are massed, and mashed.
An individual violin should 'sing', and never 'screech'.
Ditto choir recordings....individual voices can be discerned and followed throughout the recording.
I could go on......I use natural sounds as my reference, indeed I often sit outside in my pergola area, with bird sounds, wind sounds, leaf rustling sounds and beach sounds as background while I listen to my Stax headphones.
If the reproduced sound is good/correct, when I take the headphones off those natural sounds, still sound good.
Interestingly if that reproduced sound is not 'right', those natural sounds don't sound 'right' either upon removal of the headphones.....an example of ear habituation/compensation/protection.
If the reproduction does sound 'right', then removal of the headphones translates as a comfortable transfer from one sound source to another.
Dan.
This can be singing accompanied by music, or spoken word recordings or radio broadcasts.....FM, DAB+, or AM even.
When a system is sitting 'right', the vocals sound 'right'.
It is very useful to know the unamplified in person sound/tonality of a particular performers speaking voice, and also their live performance vocal when judging a playback system using recordings of that performer.
On the subject of detail/transparency, I find that when a system is sounding 'right', interesting nuances in performers' voices are nakedly revealed.
For example, Blondie, has an interesting little lisp in her vocal delivery, that is not evident on lesser playback systems.
Many other performers also have interesting speech defects that are not revealed on typical systems.
Aussie members will get this....John Farnham's voice is effected to the max.
His stage mic connects directly into his own effects rack (mic pre, compressor, limiter, eq, aural exciter etc), and he won't perform without that particular effects rack.
The output of that rack sounds like the JF voice that we all know in his recordings.
The input of that rack sounds like the husky, forced, weak voice that we know from his spoken voice on the judging panel of likes of 'Hey, Hey It's Saturday'.
So, knowing his natural speaking voice, on a really good system, this husky, weak vocal is still evident despite all his effects units.
It takes a good system to reveal this, and a system that is falsely 'detailed/transparent' will draw attention to such vocal details, but they are exaggerated, and vocals won't sound quite like the real thing, and are subtlety unnatural.
Other sound sources that I use as arbiters, are cymbals, snare, toms, and kick..all too often cymbals splash, hash and flare, toms don't attack and ring correctly, snares sound like a burst of noise, and kicks that don't.
Individual violins, and massed violins are another arbiter.
On good gear, massed violins are individual, on lesser gear they are are massed, and mashed.
An individual violin should 'sing', and never 'screech'.
Ditto choir recordings....individual voices can be discerned and followed throughout the recording.
I could go on......I use natural sounds as my reference, indeed I often sit outside in my pergola area, with bird sounds, wind sounds, leaf rustling sounds and beach sounds as background while I listen to my Stax headphones.
If the reproduced sound is good/correct, when I take the headphones off those natural sounds, still sound good.
Interestingly if that reproduced sound is not 'right', those natural sounds don't sound 'right' either upon removal of the headphones.....an example of ear habituation/compensation/protection.
If the reproduction does sound 'right', then removal of the headphones translates as a comfortable transfer from one sound source to another.
Dan.
Excellent description, Dan. This is perhaps why many people don't "get" good audio, it doesn't sound spectacularly different from all the other sound around them, therefore they can't see the value in it.
The interesting aspect is that because one's mental focus doesn't have to adjust between the tonality of the reproduction, and that of the natural world around them - that the reproduction can be intensely loud without discomfort. There is no problem running rock and suchlike at deafening levels, assuming the system can do it cleanly, because it still has that quality of 'rightness' about it, your body is not having to work hard to 'assimilate' it.
One of the things that always amazes me when I hear a good orchestra live, is how the massed strings do not sound like individual instruments. I can never pick out an individual violin unless that one is out of tune or playing out of time with the others. When they are good, massed strings do not sound like a collection of individual violins, they sound like an entirely different, single instrument. Massed violins that sound individual is a perfect example of a system (or recording) that is adding an effect that is not present in the original sound field. Like the "fingers on fret board" that seems to be a sine qua non for many audiophiles. That sound is not particularly prominent on an unamplified live guitar, it only appears when the guitar is mic'ed very close and the reproducing system is a little hot in the high end, emphasizing that particular sound.
John,
I have to agree that until you have heard a very good sound system often you just don't have a reference for what can be. I'll stay out of the no nfb vs with argument, I don't have a reference for a non nfb amp to compare it to.
On the point of a great musician or singer I have to agree with Sy that it is obvious when you hear someone who is exceptional, even on a sub standard playback system. I'm all with Sy on the possibility that you can tell the sound of a great acoustical guitar vs a cheap version on a good system.
What I will say about most new pop music singers, especially the women is that they mostly scream, I have a real hard time listening to the current crop of singers, it isn't about how loud you can screech, I would rather hear someone just sing. Barbara Streisand can sing but has that habit of overdoing it also, not much different than someone pushing it to the limits. I know Whitney Houston could sing but most of the time she also did that, I don't want someone screaming at me, just let it flow naturally is what I want. I'll stick to Joni Mitchell for a good female voice to listen to a system, she just sings and does it well.
I have to agree that until you have heard a very good sound system often you just don't have a reference for what can be. I'll stay out of the no nfb vs with argument, I don't have a reference for a non nfb amp to compare it to.
On the point of a great musician or singer I have to agree with Sy that it is obvious when you hear someone who is exceptional, even on a sub standard playback system. I'm all with Sy on the possibility that you can tell the sound of a great acoustical guitar vs a cheap version on a good system.
What I will say about most new pop music singers, especially the women is that they mostly scream, I have a real hard time listening to the current crop of singers, it isn't about how loud you can screech, I would rather hear someone just sing. Barbara Streisand can sing but has that habit of overdoing it also, not much different than someone pushing it to the limits. I know Whitney Houston could sing but most of the time she also did that, I don't want someone screaming at me, just let it flow naturally is what I want. I'll stick to Joni Mitchell for a good female voice to listen to a system, she just sings and does it well.
nezbleu,
I can't believe that anyone listening to a great guitar player on an acoustic guitar would say that you can't hear the fingers sounds on the fret board. Perhaps some Flamenco guitar players are good enough not to drag their fingers but most music you hear the fingers sliding or even adding some tremolo by bending the strings up and down on the frets. That would be like not knowing that someone is playing a slide guitar, it has a very distinctive sound when played that way.
And though I haven't played a guitar in ages, I know a great guitar player from an amateur, you just can't fake the way a great guitar player fingers the fret board.
I can't believe that anyone listening to a great guitar player on an acoustic guitar would say that you can't hear the fingers sounds on the fret board. Perhaps some Flamenco guitar players are good enough not to drag their fingers but most music you hear the fingers sliding or even adding some tremolo by bending the strings up and down on the frets. That would be like not knowing that someone is playing a slide guitar, it has a very distinctive sound when played that way.
And though I haven't played a guitar in ages, I know a great guitar player from an amateur, you just can't fake the way a great guitar player fingers the fret board.
Yes, a very sweet, lush, rich texture develops - this is certainly captured on recordings, forms a "luscious" backdrop to the other sounds - obviously, an indicator of good sound happening ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.