I thought you indicated that the differences were "Yuge!" Even so they should easily show up in testing given your description if its the software. If its some combination of software and hardware (e.g. running out of CPU, quite unlikely on a recent computer) then only you can check it since you have the specific hardware.
So, you could provide the music files that you use to hear the big diffo in the ABX plugin, for others to test with?
Huh? You use whole songs to compare because that's what you want to do and you like A more than B. What could possibly lead to a preference in a casual sighted comparison???
Scott, it's a phishing expedition of trying to invalidate useful experiments because they lack absolute values. The entire premise of his arguments is built on it must be either X or Y rather than any muddling of "some contribution of X and a lot more contribution of Y. Oh, and don't forget Z".
My life got a lot better after I made some profile changes.
My life got a lot better after I made some profile changes.
Why would it be useful to go over the heard frequency range? Something that would be interesting is why two instruments/samples/etc can play the same note, that to our eye appears like the same FR plot, but our ears can hear a timbre difference. Yes we can zoom in on the FR plot and see minor differences that can account for it, but we can't quantify them. As far as I know, no one could look at both and tell you which is going to have A or B timbre or predict what one will look like that has a specific quality if you had a whole alphabet worth.
What you said. Bold added.
I said nothing about THD... but presumably with a lack of THD, there is no difference.
If you disagree with that statement, say.
I asked on what BASIS would a preference be found - the preference you refer to??
Assume an ABX or DBT test so that there is no visual or other bias.
_-_-
What can make allegedly same-THD+N amplifiers sound different?
I am not claiming that all of these are of equal or even great importance, just things to consider.
Interaction of the source component with the input of the amplifier, including distortions occurring at the input. Cordell and I have suggested that higher input impedance can be useful here, especially if the source component's output is the typical mid-sized electrolytic capacitor with perhaps a 100k to common to get a low d.c. output offset.
Overload behavior, including out-of-band signals that strictly speaking shouldn't be there. Within this category, not merely slew-rate limiting but in particular asymmetrical slew rate behavior.
Slow shifts due to signal-induced changes like self-heating (what was proudly re-invented as "memory distortion" but known to scope designers for many years).
Interaction of the output with the load.
Note that some of these will likely not be revealed by hooking up the Ap (or whatever generator/analyzer) in a specific "standard" configuration, and using sinusoids for the test signals.
Some of this gets severe with other components like phono preamps, where about everybody drives the input from a low-impedance generator, which for MM inputs is ludicrously inappropriate for measurements of noise and distortion---but almost always is used to publish the RIAA accuracy. That's fine to do in itself, but the interaction with a specific cartridge or representative test load is also important.
I am not claiming that all of these are of equal or even great importance, just things to consider.
Interaction of the source component with the input of the amplifier, including distortions occurring at the input. Cordell and I have suggested that higher input impedance can be useful here, especially if the source component's output is the typical mid-sized electrolytic capacitor with perhaps a 100k to common to get a low d.c. output offset.
Overload behavior, including out-of-band signals that strictly speaking shouldn't be there. Within this category, not merely slew-rate limiting but in particular asymmetrical slew rate behavior.
Slow shifts due to signal-induced changes like self-heating (what was proudly re-invented as "memory distortion" but known to scope designers for many years).
Interaction of the output with the load.
Note that some of these will likely not be revealed by hooking up the Ap (or whatever generator/analyzer) in a specific "standard" configuration, and using sinusoids for the test signals.
Some of this gets severe with other components like phono preamps, where about everybody drives the input from a low-impedance generator, which for MM inputs is ludicrously inappropriate for measurements of noise and distortion---but almost always is used to publish the RIAA accuracy. That's fine to do in itself, but the interaction with a specific cartridge or representative test load is also important.
Their favorite cable makes one oscillate? Remember I've been there no scopes or diagnostic equipment allowed in the listening room. No propeller hats either.
Ed takes a design cue to make sure he's above/outside the known realm of human possibility, both in terms of DR (mosquito in the neighboring county to Saturn V launch pad 😀) and, now, in terms of FR (turning one's internals into jelly to making the local bat population hate you... I jest, I jest). Given this distinction is blurry, it certainly has plenty of merit to ensure that you're staying ahead of what we know is possible. Just have to keep in mind what other design compromises one must make to achieve those goals. Sorta like making absurd specmanship amps -- stability at the extrema gets harder and harder to control.
Gets back to the aphorism "perfection is the enemy of good enough".
Bear,
If you take a single topology and build it two ways, one where all the devices are matched as close as possible and another where plain Jane devices are used, no selecting of components, one with let's say 50 db of negative feedback and the other with matched components and 25 db of negative feedback and both measured exactly the same 0.005% THD would they sound identical at the same output level?
If you take a single topology and build it two ways, one where all the devices are matched as close as possible and another where plain Jane devices are used, no selecting of components, one with let's say 50 db of negative feedback and the other with matched components and 25 db of negative feedback and both measured exactly the same 0.005% THD would they sound identical at the same output level?
You can also do similar setup for headphones. In L.Audio Vol3 there is before and after of an over-the-ear headphone measured at the ear canal entrance that was EQ'ed using same gear as for my M2/room.... made very flat over most of the FR range.
THx-RNMarsh
No, they would not sound the same. DF and Zo vs freq would be different.
THx-RNMarsh
Sure it has!
So it seems your unconscious part, brought back to your memory the image of something that you’d feel better reading than reading what you read on your screen now.
(that “something relevant” is still taking place now).
George
That gain is going to have to go somewhere, thus into local loops as opposed to the outer loop. Without running the sims on such a reconnection, I do wonder how *big* a difference in Zo (and thus DF) we'd be seeing.
So add LP clicks to the digital playback.
Edit: OOPS saw later in the thread this has been mentioned.
Scott, I will answer you about Quilter soon.
Last edited:
I should join that club too. Full Rasmussen syndrome in effect and I've already had an award winning legend tell me my system is rubbish 🙂.
Other than about common places, I have no idea what you are talking and what is your point here ref. my original post. Sorry, it must be my dumbo day.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.