Hi,
Not so much a nerve. But I have a LOT of Solid State background and I do NOT need you to tell me "hasn't had time to appreciate Solid State".
In that you are combining claims that I only like/use tubes because I do not know solid state gear (and hidden that I would change my preference as soon as I did). That's a bit beyond the pale and neither ironic nor funny.
Had you said: "TL is the tooob before transistors guy, after trying more sh.. than he cares to remember" I would not mind at all...
Ciao T
It was meant as a joke, same as to TL, his response was as such , yours .....I guess i must have hit a nerve
Not so much a nerve. But I have a LOT of Solid State background and I do NOT need you to tell me "hasn't had time to appreciate Solid State".
In that you are combining claims that I only like/use tubes because I do not know solid state gear (and hidden that I would change my preference as soon as I did). That's a bit beyond the pale and neither ironic nor funny.
Had you said: "TL is the tooob before transistors guy, after trying more sh.. than he cares to remember" I would not mind at all...
Ciao T
What's sensitive in something that I badly want, but can't afford?!
So i guess that either you can afford and has such a jewel or that
you simply dont need one....
What you guys would say about such measurement approach:
1) suppose one can use low-noise 24bit-192kHz analog to digital transducer (or better)
2) one can use top quality vinyl recordings of symphonic orchestra, and corresponding RIAA preamp
3) one digitizes with maximum precision 1 sec part of orchestra sound signal from RIAA
4) one uses special soft to characterize in "proper" manner this digital replica, for instance (to be specified in more detail later on), to interpolate the curve and calculate the number of zero values of the second derivative (the numer of inflection points, presumingly it is related with amount of information in musical signal)
5) similar thing is done with output signal from an amp
6) compare the "norm" value at input and output
1) suppose one can use low-noise 24bit-192kHz analog to digital transducer (or better)
2) one can use top quality vinyl recordings of symphonic orchestra, and corresponding RIAA preamp
3) one digitizes with maximum precision 1 sec part of orchestra sound signal from RIAA
4) one uses special soft to characterize in "proper" manner this digital replica, for instance (to be specified in more detail later on), to interpolate the curve and calculate the number of zero values of the second derivative (the numer of inflection points, presumingly it is related with amount of information in musical signal)
5) similar thing is done with output signal from an amp
6) compare the "norm" value at input and output
That one I definitely don't need.So i guess that either you can afford and has such a jewel or that
you simply dont need one....
Hi,
I believe Wahab is inferring that you suffer from Ap2 envy.
AP2 envy is suffered by those who "believe" in measurements and upon seeing the AP2 graph's in Stereophile, the JAES and other publications wish they had their own AP2 so they could fondle it, instead of having to slink off to the gents with magazine for a session of bollocks juggling.
Funny, as someone who has ready access to an AP2, I almost only use it to verify gear I know will be reviewed by Stereophile or others that use an AP2, or to do jitter analysis (it is pretty easy to generate any jitter you like). Almost anything else I can do pretty much as well using other gear including a 400 USD Soundcard and freeware software.
To be honest, I'd instantly trade the AP2 for a Tek DPO70404, if anyone was to offer...
Ciao T
I believe Wahab is inferring that you suffer from Ap2 envy.
AP2 envy is suffered by those who "believe" in measurements and upon seeing the AP2 graph's in Stereophile, the JAES and other publications wish they had their own AP2 so they could fondle it, instead of having to slink off to the gents with magazine for a session of bollocks juggling.
Funny, as someone who has ready access to an AP2, I almost only use it to verify gear I know will be reviewed by Stereophile or others that use an AP2, or to do jitter analysis (it is pretty easy to generate any jitter you like). Almost anything else I can do pretty much as well using other gear including a 400 USD Soundcard and freeware software.
To be honest, I'd instantly trade the AP2 for a Tek DPO70404, if anyone was to offer...
Ciao T
That one I definitely don't need.
Let s say that there s way cheaper solutions....
Hi , TL
One would not be completely sincere if he was to say that thisis a useless gear and that our PC soundcards are enough but for sure that the beast
is largely overpriced to the point that i put it almost with high end audio
ruining tools...
IIRC this cost about 28K/30K$ , hey , i built a 160 m2 home in my
native country for just a little bit more...
Hi,
I use a EMU 1616m. It has a real 120dB dynamic range and 100KHz bandwidth (some rolloff in the DAC part can be compensated for with calibration file). The Mike Pre's and 1MOhm Inputs are a bonus for certain measurements.
Add a breakout box from Jack to BNC's (so you can use BNC terminated cables) and a PC and you have a first class audio measurement system some would have given a kidney for in the 80's.
It is "the standard" which carries a premium and it is rather expensive to build in small quantities. Very smart of AP to give them on extended loan to kep publications, it forces the rest of us to actually buy the darn things.
Kind of like Klippel giving a loaner of his Analyser to Vance Dickason at Voice Coil, now every driver manufacturer needs to buy so they will know what Voice Coil will print, if it is relevant or not (arguably, klippel data is more meaningful than what the AP tells you).
Yeah, basically chump change.
Have a look what a Top-End Tek DPO costs. I'd swap the AP2 for one of the lower end models that only cost around 50K+ US any day, but I never get any takers.
It's all horses for courses.
Ciao T
I use a EMU 1616m. It has a real 120dB dynamic range and 100KHz bandwidth (some rolloff in the DAC part can be compensated for with calibration file). The Mike Pre's and 1MOhm Inputs are a bonus for certain measurements.
Add a breakout box from Jack to BNC's (so you can use BNC terminated cables) and a PC and you have a first class audio measurement system some would have given a kidney for in the 80's.
It is "the standard" which carries a premium and it is rather expensive to build in small quantities. Very smart of AP to give them on extended loan to kep publications, it forces the rest of us to actually buy the darn things.
Kind of like Klippel giving a loaner of his Analyser to Vance Dickason at Voice Coil, now every driver manufacturer needs to buy so they will know what Voice Coil will print, if it is relevant or not (arguably, klippel data is more meaningful than what the AP tells you).
Yeah, basically chump change.
Have a look what a Top-End Tek DPO costs. I'd swap the AP2 for one of the lower end models that only cost around 50K+ US any day, but I never get any takers.
It's all horses for courses.
Ciao T
Only those of us who actually care what the establishment publications say
Speaking of such here's a nice pic to feast your eyes on from a recent review of an $8k A+ rated digital box...
Bricasti Design M1 D/A converter Page 2 | Stereophile.com
No, I meant it is useless toy. If somebody wants to know whatis so special in my designs I can honestly explain, without such toys.
Hi,
Alas, those of us having products that will be reviewed by Stereophile MUST care, as it will invariably impact sales.
We may elect to disagree with the import placed measurements or subjective assessment in this publication or even not care personally at all what they publish. However it has a significant opinion shaping effect not just in it's primary market the US (which is so bad right now for High End Audio, we might as well not care) but all around the world.
A mediocre review in this one publication can severely impact a brands perceptions worldwide, just as a good review can. As a realist I find little use kvetching about how the situation is not as I would like, but instead will just "get on with it".
Ciao T
Only those of us who actually care what the establishment publications say
Alas, those of us having products that will be reviewed by Stereophile MUST care, as it will invariably impact sales.
We may elect to disagree with the import placed measurements or subjective assessment in this publication or even not care personally at all what they publish. However it has a significant opinion shaping effect not just in it's primary market the US (which is so bad right now for High End Audio, we might as well not care) but all around the world.
A mediocre review in this one publication can severely impact a brands perceptions worldwide, just as a good review can. As a realist I find little use kvetching about how the situation is not as I would like, but instead will just "get on with it".
Ciao T
@Wayne
While I'll readily agree a transformer is of utmost importance to the sound we eventually hear, there are limits.
You seem to forget that not all transformers were born equal, i.e. the quality factor. To use a drastic example, if a toroid's core is made of classic materials, as most of us use, that's one thing, but if somebody make a nominally same core made of sintered materials, he will have a transformer way out of this world, capable of delivering about 3 times its nominal power in peaks without significant distortion. Unfortunatley, it will do so at a prohibitively high price.
And the ultimate perversion - such a transformer will, over time, start to produce even better results then when new - not by much, say 1...3% better. This is because over time, sintered materials tend to become even more compact, eliminating still some more empty space within itself and thus becoming more efficient.
I use sintered material toroids in my filters. After about two years of being plugged into the wall socket, which is about 15,000 hours of operation, the actual measured results will improve across the board by 1...2 dB. ALWAYS, no exceptions.
Under normal conditions, it does matter how was a transformer wound, with what kind og wire, how was its insulation programmed, etc, etc, etc. This is why I stressed the point that my transformers were of the custom type. I honestly don't know what its manufacturer does, but I do know that when it's exchanged for a cheaper standard type, the sound degrades - it's that simple. But I have to pay a premium, and I don't mind doing it because I get demonstraby better transformers.
I was told once by an old man making them that a good offhand measure of a toroidal transformer's quality was its quiescent current consumption. The less current it uses all by itself, the better the product. He demonstrated it for me by taking a well known British product, a transformer rated at 300 VA, which was found to use 37 mA all of its own, and compared it to his 500 VA transformer, which gobbled up 27 mA.
My point is, the bigger, the better idea is not that simple. Your power supply laso uses some wiring, so it's another factor. Then there are your filter capacitors - size is nice, and we should pay attention to it, but you cannot remove the quality factor from the equation, some are simply better sounding than others. I'd rather have smaller capacity but higher quality, than otherwise.
Lastly, with all due respect, but my experience has it that a fully electronically regulated power supply will always and up as better than a massive filter bank, even if it's so massive that eventually it starts to look and act like a full electronic regulator. A little more complex, always more expensive, but in terms of results, always the best, I think.
While I'll readily agree a transformer is of utmost importance to the sound we eventually hear, there are limits.
You seem to forget that not all transformers were born equal, i.e. the quality factor. To use a drastic example, if a toroid's core is made of classic materials, as most of us use, that's one thing, but if somebody make a nominally same core made of sintered materials, he will have a transformer way out of this world, capable of delivering about 3 times its nominal power in peaks without significant distortion. Unfortunatley, it will do so at a prohibitively high price.
And the ultimate perversion - such a transformer will, over time, start to produce even better results then when new - not by much, say 1...3% better. This is because over time, sintered materials tend to become even more compact, eliminating still some more empty space within itself and thus becoming more efficient.
I use sintered material toroids in my filters. After about two years of being plugged into the wall socket, which is about 15,000 hours of operation, the actual measured results will improve across the board by 1...2 dB. ALWAYS, no exceptions.
Under normal conditions, it does matter how was a transformer wound, with what kind og wire, how was its insulation programmed, etc, etc, etc. This is why I stressed the point that my transformers were of the custom type. I honestly don't know what its manufacturer does, but I do know that when it's exchanged for a cheaper standard type, the sound degrades - it's that simple. But I have to pay a premium, and I don't mind doing it because I get demonstraby better transformers.
I was told once by an old man making them that a good offhand measure of a toroidal transformer's quality was its quiescent current consumption. The less current it uses all by itself, the better the product. He demonstrated it for me by taking a well known British product, a transformer rated at 300 VA, which was found to use 37 mA all of its own, and compared it to his 500 VA transformer, which gobbled up 27 mA.
My point is, the bigger, the better idea is not that simple. Your power supply laso uses some wiring, so it's another factor. Then there are your filter capacitors - size is nice, and we should pay attention to it, but you cannot remove the quality factor from the equation, some are simply better sounding than others. I'd rather have smaller capacity but higher quality, than otherwise.
Lastly, with all due respect, but my experience has it that a fully electronically regulated power supply will always and up as better than a massive filter bank, even if it's so massive that eventually it starts to look and act like a full electronic regulator. A little more complex, always more expensive, but in terms of results, always the best, I think.
Yep, no disagreement. As Morpheus says 'they are the gatekeepers, they are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys'.
A real realist would not even have preferences ('like this, don't like that'), just get on with the task of creating reality in his/her image.
I don't know what 'IPS' refers to, but that sentence does chime with something I was going on about a few posts ago: that there is a level of maths to which people think they must go in order to understand something, but in reality they then only understand a very simplified version. If all you're doing is taking an existing given circuit configuration and plugging numbers into the prescribed formula, then you might as well let SPICE do the work for you. Understanding what the circuit is doing is completely different from being able to calculate it - which is is simply mechanical.
Thinking about this, I might go so far as to make the following generalisation:
A person creating an electronic simulation program would not have to know anything about electronics, but have a reasonable amout of maths. Conversely, an engineer practising electronics, with access to the simulator, would not have to know any maths at all...
A person creating an electronic simulation program would not have to know anything about electronics, but have a reasonable amout of maths. Conversely, an engineer practising electronics, with access to the simulator, would not have to know any maths at all...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.