except...
That if you read the discussion on this, Bruno straight out admits that his discrete stage on the NC-400 modules outperforms any IC opamps he tested in measured performance.
That if you read the discussion on this, Bruno straight out admits that his discrete stage on the NC-400 modules outperforms any IC opamps he tested in measured performance.
What I object most to is the extreme aggressive nature that has been developed in a message that we need to be saved from ourselves.
Long ago we had the subjective versus objective debate. It raged for quite a while, but was generally good natured. Remember Peter Walker saying his Quad 2 and Quad 303 amps sounded the same, it was humorous and nobody got their noses out of joint. Now it seems some have donned new clothes and what used to be the objective side has grown barbs it did not have earlier. We now need salvation - judge only approved methods which are presented as 'best available' dogma.
But is it the best available?
The truth is that most audiophiles just don't care, and they don't care to be saved, and DIY'ers even less because making something that actually works and perhaps also sounds good, that is a great source of pleasure on their behalf, the delight of accomplishment.
Listen to 'Riders On The Storm' which contains the very last words recorded by Jim Morrison. No, not the actual singing of the song, but the decision to double-track Morrison's voice afterwards, he actually whispers the words that he sung earlier, all the way through. And that whisper was the last thing he did.
Why bring this up? Simply because if you cannot hear that clearly and distinct, then clearly we have a problem of resolution.
Another example, listening to an unfamiliar recording you hear an acoustic guitar in the mix. Then later, when certain changes were made, you realise that the guitar is double-tracked and you are suprised but curiously also delighted to hear that. Only later, with additional changes, you hear that the guitar is actually tripple-tracked and that really makes an impact, so subtle and yet so powerful.
The key word above? Resolution!
Every audiophile should spend time in a decent recording studio. Those guys know their stuff. People like Barry Wolifson of Chesky. Yes, I have worked with Barry and his then partner Phil Punch before he moved to the States. These guys know how to use their ears, they have trained themselves through sheer volume of experience - and not an ABX switch in sight.
So, what I am saying is that measured distortion is not a guide to what a piece of equipment is able to resolve. Low distortion will always be a requirement unless it is added for artistic purposes (and now that form of distortion has to be also accurately resolved and reproduced).
When I listen for differences in different equipment, I apply a reasonably but not restrictive requirement: Accurate level matching - or that can mess your brains seriously, and then allow yourself enough time to casually switch from one to the other, the getting-to-know-you phase. Then start listening more seriously and listen to what is being resolved and what is not. No induced imagination takes place, there are no stress factors but there is discipline employed. There should not also be a time limit, the idea that equipment burns in or not, that should be immaterial if enough time allowed. Besides, what is often happening is that the listener simply needs the time to comes to terms with what he or she is listening to, perhaps to a far greater extent that burn-in.
You don't need an ABX switch box to come to well constructed and objective conclusions. The problem I see with ABX is the limited time factor and you never really get to settle down because the listener is being tested as much as the methodology and the listener is more concerned whether he can perform or not (sorry, that came out funny, oops!) and is being forced to make decisions now.
Actually, double-blind testing is very important scientific tool. This should never be doubted. But to suggest that it is the only tool is arrogant and also to suggest it is the only tool in every case is misguided. In some areas it will and does struggle - yet in pharmaceutical studies it is indispensable.
In the meantime I have been enjoying listening to the NC400s very much. I congratulate Bruno and he used good engineering achieve it, no doubt about that. I am pleased that he has gone away from using LM4562 on the input instrumentation amp, back in 2006 he told us ETF06 that he did not like opamps and that LM4562 was passable as used in the HG series. I suspect the fact he can now control open/closed loop parameters has to be an advantage.
But back to testing, please try the above method and you will find it easy to manage, but be sure to achieve accurate level matching and just listen to what an amp can resolve (or indeed a source component). It need not be burdensome.
Last edited:
Which doesn't mean that the discrete stage outperforms IC opamps audibly. So ds23man's post and Bruno Putzeys' input aren't mutually exclusive.
To say it in another way: I can easily measure differences in between some audio gear that I'm not able to distinguish by ear.
BTW this is very much worth a read:
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/papers/The G Word.pdf
Note the typology of the input buffer...
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/papers/The G Word.pdf
Note the typology of the input buffer...
The problem with "what sounds better" is that it doesn't necessarily translate to another place. It only tells what sounded best in a certain setup, with certain music with the spesific listener that day.
Only changing the room or placement for speakers/listeners in the same room for that matter may alter what type of coloration sounds best.
Only changing the room or placement for speakers/listeners in the same room for that matter may alter what type of coloration sounds best.
I agree with what you say here.
From my point of view my speakers are placed in the optimum position that the wife and room will allow. I always sit in the same location to listen. If I make any changes to equipment I can tell the difference if there is one as nothing else has changed. But of course moving to a larger room (if I could) and placing the speakers in a different location will change the system and it may be that anything I have done in the original location to make it sound better to me may no longer be required.
I think Omholt's point is that what sounds better in one room might not sound better in another.
Yes,we should all spend more time dealing with the biggest component of all: the room. I won't leave home without Dirac Live now. That, plus RPG Modex Plates and multiple subs. And I can't wait for Unison. But until then we can fuss over minutiae.
But, to put things in perspective:
NC400: THD+N,IMD 0.002 % SNR 125db
NC1200 0.004 % SNR 128db onboard opamp
Mola Mola 0.003 % SNR 128db discrete buffer.
NC400: THD+N,IMD 0.002 % SNR 125db
NC1200 0.004 % SNR 128db onboard opamp
Mola Mola 0.003 % SNR 128db discrete buffer.
Hi ti33er thanks for pointing me to the FDAC on the other forum.
In case you did not reaslise I have now signed up and paid the initial payments.
So in the not too distant future I will be the proud owner of a top rate CD/DAC designed by JW
In case you did not reaslise I have now signed up and paid the initial payments.
So in the not too distant future I will be the proud owner of a top rate CD/DAC designed by JW
Likewise. And my scars were definitely not caused by proponents of an evidence-based approach ("objectivists")...
That S/N difference between the nc400 and nc1200 is solely due to the 8ohm power difference (200W vs 400W) translating into 3dB.
The 1W/8ohm S/N is the same for both amps
Why are we even discussing this? These are figures that you would expect from laboratory grade measurement equipment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.